1. A case under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was registered against the petitioners on the statement of Ch. Bashir Cheema, S.I. Police Station, Pasrur on 16-11- 1989. Precise allegation is that a raid was conducted at 'the house of the petitioners wherein they were found while taking. Liquor. Admittedly nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. Case of the prosecution is that petitioners were examined by local doctor and he found that the petitioner had already taken liquor. It is contended by the learned counsel that no offence under the provisions of Order 1979 had been committed by the petitioners inasmuch as they were arrested from inside the house. It is argued that there was no jurisdiction vested in the raiding police to conduct a raid to arrest the petitioners because petitioners did not take any liquor in the public place. Learned Law Officer opposes the petition. He contends that there is evidence available on record to demonstrate that petitioners were in fact found drunk.
2. The perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that the house of the petitioners was raided by the raiding party and that petitioners were found drunk. Further allegation was that petitioners while holding a bottle of liquor ran away from the spot. However, admittedly, the said bottle was never recovered from the possession of the petitioners. The requirement of Article 3/4 of Order 1979 is that a person can be proceeded against only when he is found to have been drunk at a public place. In this behalf learned counsel has relied upon the rule laid down in Mukhtar alias Karoo v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 591, Abdul Hameed v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 1707, and Muhammad Bashir alias Doba v. The State PLD 1988 Lah. 574. Firstly, nothing was recovered in this case from the petitioners. The only allegation against them is that they ran away from inside his house with a bottle of liquor. In the circumstances, the provisions of Article 3/4 of Order 1979 were not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case to entitle the Police Officer to register a case against the petitioners.
3. There is force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, I proceed to quash the F.I.R. Vide Annexure `A' being without lawful authority. Petition succeeds and is allowed, with no order as to costs.