1993 PLP 1161 (MLD)

A case under section 11, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was registered at P.S. Khushab, on 8-1-1984, against Haq Nawaz, who was suspected to have taken liquor. He alongwith others was already involved in a case of gambling, having been registered on 28-12-1983 vide F.I.R. No.305, in which case, the investigation was in progress. He was taken to the Civil Hospital Khushab and got medically examined. On finding symptoms of drinking, the instant case under the Prohibition Order was registered against him, it was investigated and the accused was challaned.

2. Learned Magistrate Ist class, Jauharabad, Mr. Muhammad Zahir Khan tried him, convicted him and sentenced him to two years' R.I. and whipping numbering 20 stripes, by a judgment announced on 9-6-1984. The appeal filed by the convict was dismissed on 12-6-1984 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab, Kb. Ehsan-ul-Haq.

3. The learned Magistrate has ably dealt with the matter, undertaking an elaborate discussion. The learned Sessions Judge has agreed with him in rejecting the plea of the petitioner that he had in fact taken phospholecithin, a medicine, without knowing that it contained alcohol. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that even the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case and further that the investigation in the case had been laconic and the I.O. had taken no pains to find out as to where the accused had taken liquor and what was the kind of wine that he had drunk. Nobody had seen him taking liquor and thus the alleged incident had no ocular account in support.

4. The doctor, who examined the accused on 8-1-1984, had said that the memory, speech and movement of the accused had not been affected. In that regard it may however, be pointed out that the doctor did note down the main symptoms, namely, the face was flushed, eye-lids were conjested, pulse was 110 p p.m., respiration was 30 p.m. and there was alcoholic smell coming from the mouth and breath of the accused. The stomach wash, urine and the blood, all, were found, on chemical examination, to contain alcohol. What else was required to establish that the accused was under influence of liquor, when he was hauled up by the police.

5. A number of drugs contain a permissible quantity of alcohol, but it seldom happens that a person taking such drug would start emitting alcoholic smell. The defence plea of the accused must be taken to be false and in the nature of an afterthought, which does not help him in any manner. I would not agree with the learned counsel that in this case there were two possibilities, one that the petitioner had taken alcohol and the other that he had taken that tonic and the possibility going in favour of the accused ought to have been accepted. There was hardly any doubt about the accused being a drunkard, when he fell prey to a police raid. I would therefore maintain the conviction.

6. He has no conviction in the past to his credit; and if he had gone erratic, the possibility of his repentance and reformation cannot entirely be ruled out. In the hope that he will rid himself of the evil, which law and `Sharia' treat with utmost disdain, I would accord to the convict a lenient treatment. He has been through the rigours of trial and then has been before the appellate forum for quite a few months and had then to approach this Court and here his cause has been pending over several years. He may be first offender, in so far as intoxication is concerned. The sentence is therefore reduced to the one already undergone. He is on bail and is discharged of the bail bonds. N.H.Q./H-71/L Sentence reduced.