1996 P Cr (PLP)
KHUDA BAKHSH ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | Nazir Ahmad Bhatti, C. J. and Nasir Aslam Zahid, J |
| Parties | KHUDA BAKHSH ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: Nazir Ahmad Bhatti, C. J. and Nasir Aslam Zahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 P Cr (PLP) (KHUDA BAKHSH ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.A.M. Quadir for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 4‑‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.156‑‑‑Joint trial‑‑Validity‑‑‑Accused from whose possession huge quantity of heroin was allegedly recovered by Customs Authority, was sent to Special Judge (Customs) for trial and Special Judge framed a joint charge against accused for two offences, one under S.156 of the Customs Act, 1969 and the other under Art.4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order, 1979‑‑‑Special Judge held one trial and after conclusion thereof, convicted accused for both offences for which he was charged‑‑‑Joint trial of accused by Special Judge for the two separate offences, was illegal and without lawful authority and by that accused was prejudiced‑‑ Judgment of Special Judge was set aside in so far as it related to Art.4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and Sessions Judge was directed to hold a de novo trial of accused by framing a fresh appropriate charge under Art.4 of the said Order. Salahuddin Mengal, A.A.‑G. Balochistan. Date of 18th October, 1994.
Judgment & Decree
S.A.M. Quadir for Appellant. Salahuddin Mengal, A.A.‑G. Balochistan. Date of 18th October, 1994. NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, C.J.‑‑‑ Heroin weighing 5,200 grams was recovered from the possession of the appellant, Khuda Bakhsh, on 31‑1‑1992 within the limits of Turbat by officials of the Makran Scouts. The latter sent written complaint to the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, Quetta, where case was registered on 14‑2‑1992. The appellant was sent up for trial before the Special Judge (Customs), Makran Division at Turbat. The latter framed charges against the appellant for two offences, one under section 156 of the Customs Act and the other under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. This was a joint charge. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge Customs held one trial and after the conclusion thereof convicted the appellant for both the offences for which he was charged. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice that in so far as the conviction under Customs Act is concerned, the appellant has filed a separate appeal before the competent forum and he has challenged his conviction and sentence under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order in this Court. 3. The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Special Judge Customs could not try the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order, although he could try him as a Sessions Judge. The learned counsel contended that an illegality had been committed by the learned Special Judge Customs in holding joint trial for both the offences and the accused was thereby prejudiced. This contention of the learned counsel was not controverted by the learned State counsel. 4. We have also considered the matter very anxiously and have come to the conclusion that the joint trial for these two separate offences was illegal and without lawful authority and the appellant was prejudiced. Consequently, we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and set aside the impugned judgment of the Special Judge Customs, Makran Division Turbat, in so far as it relates to Article 4 of the Prohibition Order. We direct the learned Sessions Judge to hold a de novo trial of the appellant by framing a fresh appropriate charge under the prohibition Order as a Sessions Judge. This judgment is without prejudice to the conviction of the appellant under the Customs Act. H.B.T./K‑260/F.Sh Order accordingly.