1986 PLP 1482 (SCMR)
SOHAIL AMJAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1482 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Bench |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah and Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ |
| Parties | SOHAIL AMJAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1482 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1482 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah and Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1482 (SCMR) (SOHAIL AMJAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 28th April 1986.
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad, dated 15-10-1985 passed in Cr.A.No.121/I of 1985).
Art. 203-F--Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 4--Petitioner found carrying 2000 grams of Heroine while travelling by a public vehicle--Police officials appearing as recovery witnesses- Conviction challenged on ground that none of public passengers travelling in vehicle was made recovery witness and on ground of enmity against police officials--Held: It was commonly known that passengers travelling in moving vehicle, unless coerced, were not willing to become witnesses in such a case--There was no law that police officials cannot be believed--Two Courts below having believed recovery witnesses and there being nothing on record to show that they were in any way inimical to petitioner, Supreme Court declined to interfere--Leave to appeal refused.
Art. 185 (3)--Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 4--Reappraisal of evidence--Two Courts below having believed recovery witnesses who were police officials--Nothing on record to show that they were inimical to petitioner--No question of law or violation of any principle of appreciation of evidence involved--Re-appraisal of evidence, held, was unnecessary--Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 15‑10‑1985 of the Federal Shariat Court; whereby petitioner's conviction under Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (No.4 of 1979), with sentence of 5 years' R.I., 5 stripes and a fine of Rs.20,000, was upheld.
2. The petitioner was travelling in a public motor vehicle. When at Nargala Check Post the Police (P.Ws.) checked the vehicle and detained 4 persons for interrogation. There was an attach ‑case lying with the petitioner in the vehicle which was also taken down and opened with a key provided by the petitioner. It contained 2,000 grams of Heroine. During the trial the Police official appeared as recovery witness. The petitioner raised blind plea of enmity with the police officials. The trial Court believing the recovery witnesses convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noted above.
3. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that none of the witnesses from the public who were passengers in the vehicle was made a recovery witness.
4. It is commonly known that the passengers travelling in moving vehicles unless coerced are not willing to become witnesses, in case like the present one. There is no law that the police official cannot be believed. In this case two Courts below have believed the recovery witnesses. There is nothing on record to show that they were in any way inimical to the petitioner. No question of law is involved. The learned counsel wants us only to re‑appraise the evidence which in the circumstances of the case is not necessary. No principle or its violation in the appreciation of evidence is involved. This petition fails and accordingly, is dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.