1989 PLP 756 (MLD)
SAIF ULLAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED KHAN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 756 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | SAIF ULLAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED KHAN and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 756 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 756 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 756 (MLD) (SAIF ULLAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED KHAN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mansoor‑ur‑Rehman Khan Afridi for Petitioner.
- Dates of hearing: 30th January and 1st February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Alleged recovery of 'gun was effected at the instance of acquitted accused while he was in custody‑‑Recovery memo. was attested by a person not resident of locality from where gun was recovered‑‑Long standing enmity existed between attesting witness and accused‑‑Discrepancy in the statements 7 attesting witness and Investigating officer with regard to time of recovery of gun, which was recovered from a place not in exclusive possession of accused was also found‑ Benefit of doubt to accused was rightly given by Trial Court in circumstances. Nemo for the Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Alleged recovery of 'gun was effected at the instance of acquitted accused while he was in custody‑‑Recovery memo. was attested by a person not resident of locality from where gun was recovered‑‑Long standing enmity existed between attesting witness and accused‑‑Discrepancy in the statements 7 attesting witness and Investigating officer with regard to time of recovery of gun, which was recovered from a place not in exclusive possession of accused was also found‑ Benefit of doubt to accused was rightly given by Trial Court in circumstances. Mansoor‑ur‑Rehman Khan Afridi for Petitioner. Nemo for the Respondents. Dates of hearing: 30th January and 1st February, 1989. The facts leading to tire filing of this revision are that the complainant Saifullah Khan had got a case registered against the respondent Javed Khan and some others with Police Station Saddar, Mianwali, for the murder of one Saifullah Khan. The respondent was arrested in the case. During investigation he led to the recovery of gun P.1 for which he could not produce any licence, therefore, a separate case against him under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance was registered. He was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, who vide his judgment dated 17‑3‑1988 gave him the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the charge under the Arms Ordinance.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioher that the case against the respondent was proved and the learned trial Court had erred in law by not relying upon the statement of Saifullah Khan, P.W.1.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The gun P.1 was recovered at the instance of the respondent from the graveyard while he was in custody. The recovery memo. was attested by Saifullah Khan P.W.1 and Ghulam Sarwar, P.W. Saifullah Khan, P.W., was cross‑examined during the trial and it has come on record that he was not the resident of the locality from where the gun was recovered. Similarly, there is a discrepancy between the statement of Saifullah Khan and Nisar Ali, Inspector/I.O., P.Ws.1 and 2, respectively, with regard to the time of recovery. It has also come in evidence that there was longstanding enmity between Saifullah Khan, P.W. and the respondent. The gun was recovered from a place which was not in the exclusive possession of the respondent. In these circumstances, I find that the trial Court has rightly assessed the evidence and given the benefit of doubt to the respondent. Resultantly, the revision fails which is dismissed. H.B.T./S‑394/L Revision petition dismissed.