P L D 1996 Lahore 190 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD JAMEEL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1996 Lahore 190 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAMEEL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1996 Lahore 190 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1996 Lahore 190 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1996 Lahore 190 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD JAMEEL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Tariq Nadeem for Petitioner. Ehsan Sabri, A.A.-G. for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 103
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4
Strict compliance of the requirements of S.103, Cr.P.C. in the case of narcotics cannot be made mandatory.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Jameel, petitioner was arrested on 24-5-1995 in pursuance of a case- registered against him vide F.I.R. No 113/95 recorded at Police Station City Dunyapur of District Lodhran under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order of 1979.
2. The specific allegation against this petitioner is to the effect that on receiving secret. information that the petitioner is a drug pusher, the local police apprehended him from near a mosque and i on his personal search 25 grams of heroin was recovered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged recovery is of no avail because it is in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. because the alleged recovery has only been witnessed by the police officers while nobody from the public has been made a witness, and in this context learned counsel places reliance upon the case of Boota Masih v. State reported in 1993 PCr.LJ 1198.
4. I am afraid I cannot subscribe any longer to the view taken in the said order because the Supreme Court has been consistently taking the view that in the matter of recovery of narcotics a police officer is as good a witness as any other. The Supreme Court has also consistently taken a judicial notice of the fact that in our social set-up witnesses from the public do not come forward to give evidence particularly in cases of drug trafficking. This view was first taken in the case of Said Muhammad v. State reported in PLD 1990 SC 1176 wherein it was held that in, case of narcotics a strict compliance of the requirements of section- 103, Cr.P.C. cannot. be made mandatory. The same view was repeated in the case of Mirza Shah v. State reported in 1992 SCMR 1475 and was once again reiterated in the case of Muhammad Khan v. State reported in 1994 SCMR 1543. The latest view of the Supreme Court is in line with the earlier cases and their Lordships once again reiterated that a police officer is as good a witness as any other in the case of Mushtaq Ahmad v. State reported in 1995 SCMR 5 10.
5. The offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for life and therefore the case falls within the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. which disentitles the petitioner to the grant of bail. i~ Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑2675/L Bail refused.