| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 2583 2012 SLD 2583 2012 YLR 2455 |
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Revision No. 7/L of 2011, and Jail Criminal Revision No. 2/L of 2012, decided on 5th July, 2012
MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J
Ch. Salamat Ali Haidary for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. 7/L of 2011). Walayat Umar Chaudhry for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. 2/L of 2012). Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for the State
Criminal Revision No. 7/L of 2011, and Jail Criminal Revision No. 2/L of 2012, decided on 5th July, 2012
MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J
Ch. Salamat Ali Haidary for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. 7/L of 2011). Walayat Umar Chaudhry for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. 2/L of 2012). Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for the State
MUHAMMAD JAMSHAID and anothers
VS
THE STATE and another
Law:
Section:
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)--- ----Arts. 3 & 4---Manufacturing, trans-porting and possession of intoxicants---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Contention of counsel for accused was that accused could neither be convicted nor punished simultaneously under Arts.3 & 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, even if some narcotics were kept for sale, the element of possession by the holder was necessary under Art.4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979---Validity---Conviction of accused under Art.4 was set aside being without. lawful authority---Vehicle carrying the narcotics was owned by the one who was neither investigated nor joined with the investigation during investigation---Such fact alone could not be considered for holding accused innocent or not guilty of the charge---In view of the cogent evidence produced by the prosecution, both courts below while deciding the matter consciously, applied their judicial mind and committed no illegality or irregularity---No exception could be taken to the impugned ; and conviction of both accused under Art.3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was maintained---Fact that both accused had undergone one year and three months of sentence; and they being first offenders and original owner of the vehicle was not prosecuted, ends of justice would be sufficiently ' met, if sentence of both accused was reduced to one already undergone---Order accordingly. 1992 SCMR 108 rel. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---As both these revisions arise out of the same judgment dated 11-11-2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, therefore, are being disposed off through this single order. 2. Both the petitioners are aggrieved of the judgment dated 11-11-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against their conviction under Articles 3 and 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 passed . by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gujrat on 22-10-2011 was dismissed. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that both the petitioners were booked by Police Station, Lari Adda, Gujrat vide…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492