1991 PLP 1398 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SARWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1398 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SARWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1398 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1398 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1398 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Younas Ali Sulleria for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Recovery from accused was neither effected by police nor by Magistrate, but was effected by private persons
Easy to concoct such like story, but very difficult to rebut the same
Prosecution evidence also suffered from discrepancies
Prosecution had, thus, failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt
Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Younas Ali Sulleria for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1991. Muhammad Sarwar petitioner stands convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 on the charge of keeping unlicensed carbine on the night between 8-10-1980 and sentenced him to one year R.I.
2. The prosecution case is that 3 days before the occurrence bullock of Nazar P.W. was stolen. Three days thereafter, he alongwith Haq Nawaz and Noor Muhammad saw three persons taking away the stolen bullock, so they rushed towards them. On seeing them 2 out of the 3 persons ran way but the petitioner was apprehended and on his search carbine and two cartridges were recovered. Thereafter, he alongwith bullock, carbine and two cartridges were produced before the police. He denied the recovery of carbine and raised plea of false implication. He produced two witnesses in defence. The learned Magistrate convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to one year R.I. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang on 1-8-1982.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was apprehended by Nazar complainant and others and the carbine was planted on him, and that the prosecution evidence suffers from contradictions. No one has appeared for the State.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the recovery was not effected by the police or by the Magistrate. The recovery allegedly was effected by the private persons. It is very easy to concoct such like story and it may be very difficult to rebut the same. The prosecution evidence also suffers from discrepancies. Nazar Muhammad P.W.1 stated that the petitioner was holding bullock by one hand and was carrying two cartridges in the other hand whereas the other witnesses have not supported him. Pursuant to the above discussion, I feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The possibility of the carbine and cartridges having been planted on the petitioner by the complainant party cannot be excluded. So, the revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. N.H.Q./M-2879/L Revision accepted.