Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1991 MLD 1398

MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs THE STATE

Citation1991 MLD 1398
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Revision No,475 of 1982
Date1991-04-02
Judge(s)Muhammad Munir Khan
ResultRevision accepted

' Muhammad Sarwar petitioner stands convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 on the charge of keeping unlicensed carbine on the night between 8-10-1980 and sentenced him to one year R.I.

2. The prosecution case is that 3 days before the occurrence bullock of Nazar P.W. Was stolen. Three days thereafter, he alongwith Haq Nawaz and Noor Muhammad saw three persons taking away the stolen bullock, so they rushed towards them. On seeing them 2 out of the 3 persons ran way but the petitioner was apprehended and on his search carbine and two cartridges were recovered.

Thereafter, he alongwith bullock, carbine and two cartridges were produced before the police. He denied the recovery of carbine and raised plea of false implication. He produced two witnesses in defence. The learned Magistrate convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to one year R.I. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang on 1-8-1982.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was apprehended by Nazar complainant and others and the carbine was planted on him, and that the prosecution evidence suffers from contradictions. No one has appeared for the State.

4. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the recovery was not effected by the police or by the Magistrate. The recovery allegedly was effected by the private persons. It is very easy to concoct such like story and it may be very difficult to rebut the same. The prosecution evidence also suffers from discrepancies. Nazar Muhammad P.W.1 stated that the petitioner was holding bullock by one hand and was carrying two cartridges in the other hand whereas the other witnesses have not supported him.

Pursuant to the above discussion, I feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The possibility of the carbine and cartridges having been planted on the petitioner by the complainant party cannot be excluded. So, the revision is accepted and 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