1991 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner 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) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Bajwa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 39-A
Accused was consuming electricity through a wire directly connected with the pole and no meter was installed in his house
Witnesses had no enmity or motive to falsely involve the accused-- Prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt
Conviction was maintained in circumstances.
S. 39-A
Accused was sentenced for six months and had undergone about 2-1/2 months in jail
Occurrence dated back to the year 1982 and accused had faced hardships of trial since then
Sentence was reduced to one already undergone by accused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Electricity Act (X of 1910)
S. 39-A
Accused was sentenced for six months and had undergone about 2-1/2 months in jail
Occurrence dated back to the year 1982 and accused had faced hardships of trial since then
Sentence was reduced to one already undergone by accused in circumstances. Zafar Iqbal Bajwa for Petitioner. Aziz Ahmad Chughtai for the State. Date of hearing: 25th February 1991. Petitioner, Muhammad Sharif, was tried by Special Magistrate, WAPDA, for an offence under section 39-A of the Electricity Act, who vide his judgment, dated 20-7-1986, convicted and sentenced him to six months' R.I. The convict appealed which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge,, Sialkot, vide his judgment, dated 11-11-1986. In the present revision the petitioner challenges the judgments of both the Courts below. It was contended by learned counsel,, for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner was not proved at all. Submitted that there was no evidence to the effect that electricity was actually being consumed,, by the petitioner. Lastly, it was submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 17-2-1982, and eversince then the petitioner is facing the hardship of trial, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner, would adequately meet the ends of justice.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance. I have noticed that two employees of the WAPDA had appeared as P.W s. and both of them stated that no electricity meter was installed in the house of the petitioner but he had taken direct connection from the electricity pole and the electricity was being consumed. The petitioner was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he had admitted that the wire P.1 belonged to him. In these circumstances, I feel prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond 'doubt; especially when the witnesses were not even suggested that they had any enmity with the petitioner or any motive for the false involvement. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone some portion of his imprisonment, which would adequately meet the ends of justice, has some force. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1982 and since then the petitioner is facing hardship of trial. He was convicted to six months' R.I. Petitioner has undergone about 2 and half months of imprisonment. In these circumstances, while dismissing the revision, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner The revision is dismissed. S.A./M-2690/L Sentence reduced.