1992 P Cr (PLP)
Before Muhammad Amir Malik, J Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Amir Malik, J |
| Parties | Before Muhammad Amir Malik, J 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) (Before Muhammad Amir Malik, J Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Khatana for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 5th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑‑Accused while in custody in connected murder case, led to recovery of .12 bore gun from his house‑‑‑No independent witness from place of recovery was produced‑‑‑Witness of recovery was picked from bus stand‑‑Such witness could not be relied upon‑‑‑Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances. Nemo for the State. Ch. Nazir Ahmad for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Ch. Nazir Ahmad for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 5th May, 1991. Khan Muhammad appellant was tried by Sessions Judge, Khushab for an offence under section 13, of the Arms Ordinance for being in possession of a .12 bore gun without any licence, convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. vide judgment dated 28‑5‑1986. He has come up in appeal.
2. The prosecution case according to the F.I.R. (Exh.PA.) was that while in police custody in connection with a murder case he made a disclosure and got recovered gun (Exh.P.1) and four live cartridges (Exh.P.3/1‑4) from his residential house.
3. To prove the charge Muhammad Feroze and Amir Abdullah Sub -Inspector (P.Ws.2 and 3) were produced. They supported the recovery of the gun. No person from the Dera from where the gun was got recovered was produced. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is correct that independent witnesses from the Dera being available and none having been associated, Muhammad Feroze (P.W.2) who was picked up from the bus stand cannot be relied upon to clinch the matter against the appellant.
4. The result is that the appeal is accepted. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and he stands acquitted. SA./K‑337/1 Appeal accepted.