1999 PLP 2225 (YLR)
MUKAMMIL SHAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2225 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Tariq Parvez, J |
| Parties | MUKAMMIL SHAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2225 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2225 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Tariq Parvez, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2225 (YLR) (MUKAMMIL SHAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Zakiuddin for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 25th June, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 216‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Trial Court itself was not convinced with the prosecution evidence and had rightly observed in its judgment that from the facts and circumstances of the case and from the appraisal of evidence, ingredients of S. 216, P. P. C. were not made out against the accused‑‑‑Conviction of accused having been wrongly recorded, orders of both the Courts below were set aside and accused was acquitted accordingly. Maozam Jamil for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 25th June, 1999. It was on 8‑1‑1997 at 4 p.m. that S.H.O. Police Station ouch received information as to involvement of Mukammil Shah petitioner for harbouring and supplying edibles to one P.O. namely, Abdullah. Consequent upon such information, the petitioner was arrested from Bazar Kumbar and from his possession, a China‑made pistol .30 bore and with a charger containing 35 live rounds, were recovered. The pistol was licensed. A case under section 216, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner on the allegation of harbouring and that he is supplying edibles to the P.O., above- named.
2. The accused Mukammil Shah was put to trial in the Court of Illaqa Qazi Lal Qilla who vide his order, dated 12‑5‑1997 found the petitioner guilty of the offence he was charged with and consequently sentenced him to a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of such payment to six months' simple imprisonment. Aggrieved from the order of conviction and sentence, appeal was filed in the Court of Zilla Qazi, Timergara which was partially allowed by the learned Appellate Judge whereby the amount of fine was reduced from Rs.5,000 to Rs.200. Still not contented, the convict has filed the instant quashment petition under section 435 read with section 561‑A, Cr.P.C.
3. The perusal of the order of the ‑learned Illaqa Qazi manifest that the trial Court was not convinced with the evidence of the prosecution. In the judgment it is observed that from the facts and circumstances of the ease and from the appraisal of evidence, the ingredients of section 216, P.P.C. could not be made out against the petitioner. Similarly, at page 6 it was observed that after close scrutiny of the evidence it was found and finding was given as under:‑‑ It was again held at page 8 of the judgment of the Illaqa Qazi which runs as under:‑‑
4. In this view of the finding as was given by the trial Court and after having scanned the evidence, I am of the view that conviction was wrongly recorded. The same is, therefore, set aside and the order of the learned Illaqa Qazi, dated 12‑5‑1997 and that of Appellate Judge, dated 22‑10‑1998 are quashed and petitioner is acquitted of the charge. N.H.Q./425/P Revision petition accepted.