1991 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM MURTAZA and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE- -Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM MURTAZA and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE- -Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM MURTAZA and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE- -Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Azam Rasool for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 379
Accused was convicted for removing a Bhang plant from fields belonging to Forest Department
No one had seen accused removing Bhang plant from fields
Plant was already in tile house of accused
Value of plant was not stated by any witness--Case of theft was not proved by prosecution without reasonable doubt
Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Azam Rasool for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1991. Ghulam Murtaza and two others, petitioners, stand convicted under section 379, P.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. on the charge of theft of Bhang plant from the area of Forest Department without the consent and permission of the Department.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 3 witnesses. Mukhtar Ahmad P.W.1, Muhammad Ashraf P.W.2 and Rai Akber Ali, A.S.I. P.W.3. P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated that the Bhang plant was lying in a house. The petitioner came there and tried to take away the same. When they tried to arrest him he resisted.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Bhang plant was already in the house. There was no evidence that the petitioner had removed the same from the fields; or had placed the same in the house and that the petitioner stands convicted on the account of suspicion. No one has appeared for the State.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I find that no one had seen the petitioner removing Bhang Plant from the fields. The Bhang plant was already in the house after having been removed from / the area of Forest Department. The value of the Bhang plant has not been stated by the prosecution. In these circumstances, I feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove case of theft against the petitioner, beyond reasonable doubt.
5. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted. His conviction, and sentence is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. S.A./G-451/L Revision accepted.