1985 P Cr (PLP)
ZAHOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ZAHOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (ZAHOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Aftab Farrukh for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Accused leading to recovery of unlicensed dagger‑‑Prosecution witnesses including Police Officer having no enmity with accused to falsely involve him‑‑No inherent infirmity found in statements of said witnesses‑‑Defence failing to rebut prosecution case and its evidence‑ Accused, held, had been rightly convicted by trial Court‑‑Conviction and sentence of two years' R.I. maintained‑‑Sentence ordered to run concurrently with sentence awarded in connected murder case. Shabbir Lali for the State
Judgment & Decree
Shabbir Lali for the State Date of hearing: 14th May, 1985. This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, whereby on 3‑8‑1983 convicted Zahoor Ahmad appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was that after his arrest in the connected murder case he led to the recovery of unlicensed dagger Exh. P.1 from the residential Kotha. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined Talib Hussain P. W.1 and Muhammad Aslam Khan, S.I. P.W.2. The witnesses stated that Zahoor Ahmad appellant had led to the recovery of unlicensed dagger Exh. P.1 from his residential Kotha.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that Talib Hussain and Muhammad Aslam Khan, S.I., P. Ws. had no enmity with the appellant to involve him falsely in the case. The learned counsel has failed to point out any inherent infirmity in their statements. The learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons I am of the view that the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court tinder section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
7. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the sentence of 2 years awarded in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded in the connected murder case. H. A. K. Appeal dismissed.