1984 PLP 610 (SCMR)

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑This petition is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 25‑6‑19$3 in Criminal Revision No. 62 of31983.

2. According to the prosecution case the accused/petitioner was sought by the police to execute warrant against him against M. L. O. No. 12 and for that purpose they had laid a trap for the petitioner's arrest at the railway crossing at Taxila at about 3‑30 a. m. on 4‑10‑1982. The petitioner along with two other co‑accused Gulzar Hussain Shah and Akhtar Hussain Shah were, consequently, apprehended on 4‑10‑1982 at the said railway crossing and a search was conducted of the car which the petitioner himself was driving and Charas weighing 8 Kg. was allegedly recovered from the luggage‑booth of the car. The accused/petitioner along with his co‑accused, was tried by the learned M. I. C. Wah Cantt. under section 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, and was convicted and sentenced to undergo 2 years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default, to undergo further six months S. I. His two co‑accused were, however, acquitted vide order dated 16‑1‑1983. Appeal filed by the petitioner in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi was dismissed per order dated 6‑4‑1983. Thereafter he preferred a revision in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench which was also dismissed vide the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that this is a case of misreading of the evidence by the trial Court; that relations between the petitioner and the local police were strained prior to the incident of his arrest as he stood against the police high‑handedness, and, therefore, a warrant under M. L. O. No. 12 .vas secured by the police for the detention of the petitioner; that the whole case is cooked up in order to detain the petitioner in a criminal case; and lastly it was contended that the recovery was fake, and inadmissible as no respectable person of the locality had been produced to witness the recovery of the contraband Charas and the Courts below were influenced by the so‑called bad character of the accused/petitioner.

4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and gone through the judgments of the Courts below and find that the arguments are not well‑founded the Courts below have taken into considera tion the evidence produced at the trial against the petitioner and there was no misreading of the same by the trial, appellate or the revisional Court. The Courts, besides the antecedents of the accused/petitioner, have also taken into consideration the prosecution evidence in the form of recovery of Charas from the car of the accused and it cannot be made a ground o attack on the prosecution evidence that no outsider was made a witness to the recovery of Charas as the police had laid a trap only for the execution of warrant under M. L. O. 12 and it was not a case where the police expected the accused/petitioner to transport or carry Charas. Hence, we find this petition to be without any merit and the same is, consequently, dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.