1994 PLP 1290 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1290 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1290 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1290 (MLD)?
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: 1994 PLP 1290 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Liaqat Ali and Muhammad Anwar Naru for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4
Recovery of heroin being five grams case was not hit by the prohibitory clause
No attempt on the part of accused having been shown by the record- to sell heroin, applicability of Art.3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 called for further inquiry
Recovery was in violation of 5.103, Cr.P.C. read with S.165(4), Cr.P.C.
Accused who was neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal was in judicial custody for over four months and was no longer required by the Police
Case of accused was duly covered by the provisions of S.497(2), Cr.P.C. and he was allowed bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is accused of offences under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 vide F.LR. No.195, dated 11-9-1993 registered at Police Station Qila Dedar Singh, District Gujranwala.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard at length in respect of the contentions raised herein. Admittedly, the alleged recovery is of five grams of heroin and as such the instant case is not hit by the prohibitory clause, the punishment for the same being two years' R.I.; and that there is nothing on the record even, prima facie, to make out a case of any attempt by the petitioner to sell heroin and as such the applicability of Article 3 ibid calls for further inquiry. Furthermore, although the petitioner was apprehended pursuant to the raid, on receipt of a secret information, yet the alleged recovery is in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. read with subsection (4) of section 165, Cr.P.C. In addition thereto, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for over four months and is no longer required by the police and that he is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal.
3. Therefore, pursuant' to what has been stated above, the case of the petitioner is duly covered under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala. N.H.Q./M-1509/1 Bail allowed