1990SCMR1310 (PLP)
KAKKU alias SHEEDA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990SCMR1310 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Bench |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KAKKU alias SHEEDA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1310 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1310 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1310 (PLP) (KAKKU alias SHEEDA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th April, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 13‑2‑1990 of the Federal Shariat Court in CrA. No. 109‑L of 1989). ‑‑‑‑Art. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan' (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Question whether convictions based solely on the testimony of police witnesses were proper in the circumstances of our society and the manner in which prosecution applied the dictum of Supreme Court to the effect that a conviction based on their evidence was not illegal, was being examined in some other cases also‑‑‑Leave to appeal was accordingly granted in the case which involved the same question. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑The case of the prosecution was that on 11‑5‑1987 at about 6‑15 p.m. Ch. Muhammad Ismail S.I. P.W.6 alongwith a police party was present at Bus Stand Lodhran. While he was still there he received some information that one Kakku alias Sheeda (petitioner herein) was at Super Highway (opposite Brick Kiln) and was selling opium. On receipt of this information, the S.I. alongwith his party proceeded towards the spot and when they had reached near Sahiwal Hotel they met Saeed Ahmad son of Haji Muhammad Nawaz P.W. and asked him to accompany them. On reaching the spot Riaz Ahmad Constable, who was in civilian clothes, was made a fake customer and given Rs. 20 in the shape of two currency notes to purchase some opium. He, accordingly, approached the petitioner and purchased 10 grams of opium from him. As soon as he passed on the opium to Riaz Ahmad the raiding party, on his signal, pounced upon the petitioner and recovered a large quantity of opium (weighing over 2 kilograms). The petitioner was tried under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order and sentenced to 2 years' R.I. under Article 3 and to 4 years' R.I. plus 20 stripes under Article
4. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court set aside the sentence under Article 3 of the Order but maintained the sentence under Article
4. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that in the raiding party there was only one witness from the public namely Saeed Ahmad but he too has not supported the case of the prosecution; all the remaining witnesses were police officials and there was no other independent witness to support the prosecution case. The question whether convictions based solely on the testimony of the police witnesses are proper in the circumstances of our society and the manner :n which the prosecution is applying the dictum of this Court to the effect that a conviction based on their evidence is not illegal, is being examined in some other cases also. Leave granted. To come up with similar matters. In the meanwhile, the sentence of the petitioner shall be suspended on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Multan. N.H.Q./K‑151/S Leave granted.