1988 PLP 235 (MLD)
HABIB ULLAH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 235 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore. |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar and Riaz Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | HABIB ULLAH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 235 (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 1988 PLP 235 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore. bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar and Riaz Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 235 (MLD) (HABIB ULLAH — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asghar Rokhari for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13--Recovery of unlicensed gun--Only two police officials produced as witnesses--Anybody from public neither joined during recovery proceedings nor produced at trial--Police officials also contradicting each other--Evidence to prove accused leading to recovery of gun, held, was not convincing--Acquittal ordered in circumstances. Kh. Muhammad Asghar for A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Asghar Rokhari for Appellant. Kh. Muhammad Asghar for A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1988. SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.--Habib Ullah, who was tried and convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, under section 13 of the W.P. Arms Ordinance, 1965, on having been found in possession of an unlicensed gun, which allegedly he had led it to recover, while being under arrest in connected case under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, vide order dated 30-9-1984, has filed appeal against his conviction and sentence.
2. Arguments heard.
3. Only two witnesses were examined at the trial. One of them was Aziz Ahmad, A.S.I./S.I. and the other was Muhammad Akram constable. Neither anybody from the public was joined at the time of recovery, nor was produced at the trial to corroborate the statements made by the two police officials. Even A otherwise, the statements made by these two policemen are contradictory. In that according to the A.S.1., the room from which the gun was recovered, was open while according to the other witness, it was chained. Abdul Aziz, P.W. during cross-examination admitted that he had not sent for anybody from public to join and witness the recovery of gun.
4. From the evidence on record, we are not convinced that the appellant had led to the recovery of the alleged gun. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the appellant is acquitted. S.A./H-54/L Appeal allowed.