Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 283 2020 SLD 283 2020 MLD 89
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeal No. 39/K of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 22-04-2019.
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shaikh Jawaid
Respondent(s) by: Zafar Ahmad Khan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh

TULSI

VS

THE STATE

Law: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)

Section: 3,4

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103,340(2),342

(a) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)--- ----Arts. 3 & 4---Possessing intoxicant---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that seven jerry canes, each containing 30 litres liquor, a container of tin having 10 litres of under process liquor kept on the stove with small pot and pipe thereon, two clay drums each having 100 litres under process liquor buried beneath the ground, were recovered from the premises of accused---Seven plastic bottles from each Jerry Cane were obtained as samples and sealed for sending the same to the Chemical Examiner---Complainant, who was also the Investigating Officer, besides being a seizing officer stated that he obtained samples in seven plastic bottles from each Jerry Cane, which were sent to Chemical Examiner whereof positive report was received---Scrutiny of the testimony of complainant and witness/ constable had been found to be contradictory on material points---Complainant had testified that the samples were obtained in plastic bottles whereas constable in cross-examination referred the sample bottles as glass bottles---Complainant stated in cross-examination that the houses around the relevant place were situated at a distance of 50 paces and there were many houses, whereas constable/witness had denied to have seen villagers nearby the place of occurrence---Complainant/Investigating Officer stated to have sent seven bottles of sample of Chemical Examiner through a constable but said constable when examined in court categorically deposed that on the same day one sample was given to him coupled with the concerned documents for chemical laboratory, which was a crucial dent in the prosecution case---Prosecution case was that a tin having 10 litres of unprepared liquor was recovered but the same was not sent for chemical examination---Record also did not reflect that the recovered articles were formally unsealed and got exhibited by tagging the same with exhibit number in the court albeit same were statedly shown to prosecution witnesses but with no specification of the articles---Chemical Examiner had failed to assign any reason concluding that the suspected liquor was Ethyl…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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