Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1991 P Cr. L J 2064

MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE

Citation1991 P Cr. L J 2064
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Revision No.338 of 1989
Date1991-03-25
Judge(s)Muhammad Munir Khan
ResultRevision accepted

Muhammad Aslam petitioner stands convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof further R.I.

For 4 months.

2. The charge against the petitioner was that he was keeping 450 m.l. Liquor in a plastic bottle Exh.

P.1, which was recovered from his possession by Muhammad Siddiq A.S.I. In the presence of Muhammad Arshad constable and Muhammad Shafi P.Ws.

3. To prove its case prosecution produced 5 witnesses. Muhammad Siddiq A.S.I. P.W.4 and Muhammad Shafi P.W.5 have supported the recovery of plastic bottle containing liquor from the personal search of the petitioner. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature. '

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the recovery of liquor from him.

In defence he produced Jan Muhammad D.W.1 and Arshad Ali D.W.2 who stated that the petitioner was arrested by the police when he was coming out of a cinema after seeing a film and that he was of a good moral character. The petitioner gave evidence on oath in disproof of the charge f against him.

5. The trial Court convicted the petitioner on 20-7-1988. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on 15-3-1989.

6. No one has appeared for the parties. Since revision after having been admitted cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case I myself. I find that the prosecution has produced 3 witnesses in proof of the recovery of liquor from the petitioner. Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Arshad are police officials and Muhammad Shafi having appeared in several cases as witness, was/is a stock-witness. There is no independent corroboration of the statements made by them. In these circumstances, I feel that no implicit reliance can be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses.

Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted- and while p giving him benefit of doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch