1992 P Cr (PLP)
ABBAS ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Amir Malik, J |
| Parties | ABBAS ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
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 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Amir Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (ABBAS ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taqi Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing; 30th October, 1991
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Exclusive possession‑‑‑Accused led to recovery of illicit arms in presence of ladies of house from a `Paiti'‑‑‑Key of Paiti was provided by some member of‑the family who was not named by Investigating Officer‑‑‑Exclusive possession of accused of the Paiti from which illicit arms were recovered was not proved‑‑‑Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances. Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State,
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Exclusive possession‑‑‑Accused led to recovery of illicit arms in presence of ladies of house from a `Paiti'‑‑‑Key of Paiti was provided by some member of‑the family who was not named by Investigating Officer‑‑‑Exclusive possession of accused of the Paiti from which illicit arms were recovered was not proved‑‑‑Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances. Taqi Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State, Date of hearing; 30th October, 1991 Abbas petitioner was convicted by Magistrate First Class, Narowal on 20‑12‑1988 for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to one year's R.I. His appeal was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal on 9‑9‑1989. Hence the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Crown v. Santa Singh A I R 1944 Lah. 339 to contend that the exclusive possession and control of the petitioner not being proved, he could not be convicted. It is clear from the statements of the P.Ws. particularly Bashir Ahmad, A.S.I. (P.W.3) that when the petitioner led to the recovery ladies of the house were present. The recovery was effected from a Paiti which was locked and the key was provided by some member of the family. Who provided the key, has not been mentioned by the A.S.I., rather he failed to remember it. While the exclusive possession not being proved the conviction was not correctly recorded. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The conviction and the sentence of the petitioner are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. He is on bail and stands discharged of the bail bonds. SA./A‑29/L Revision accepted.