1986 PLP 2727 (MLD)
ABDUL RASHID‑‑Appellant Versus AUSA SHEEDATHE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2727 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID‑‑Appellant Versus AUSA SHEEDATHE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2727 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2727 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2727 (MLD) (ABDUL RASHID‑‑Appellant Versus AUSA SHEEDATHE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi for Appellant.
- Rafi Siddique for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑Accused allegedly got Churi, recovered ‑from a house jointly occupied by him as well as by his father‑‑Solitary witness to recovery of Churl closely related to deceased and no independent witness of locality joined to witness such recovery‑‑Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt‑ Conviction and sentence set aside, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi for Appellant. Rafi Siddique for Respondent. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur whereby he on 6‑6‑1984 convicted Abdur Rashid appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof one month's R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he was found in possession of unlicensed Churi P.1 which he got recovered from his house on 8‑2‑1980. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced Maqbool P.W.4 and LAI Din A.S.I. P.W.2 who stated that the appellant had led to the recovery of Churi P.1 from his house.
4. The‑learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that Maqbool P. W. is related to the deceased in the main case and that no independent person of the locality was joined in the investigation. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Churi P.1 was recovered from a house which was jointly occupied by the appellant and his father namely Jan Muhammad and as such it cannot be said that Churi P.1 was in the exclusive possession of the appellant. There were two attesting witnesses of the recovery of memo, one was produced and the other was given up and the witness who has been produced is closely related to the deceased. No independent witness 'of the locality was joined to witness the recovery of Churi P.1 from the appellant. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.'' For what has been said above, while giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, he is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. S. G. D. Appeal accepted.