| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1988 SLG 2834 1988 SLD 2834 1988 SCMR 1899 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for leave to Appeal No. 1l-R(S)/1988 NADIR KHAN and another--Petitioners THE STATE--Respondent (From the judgment Dated 23-12-1987 of the Federal Shariat Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 91/L of 1987). Criminal Petition
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, PIR MUHAMMAD KARAM SHAH AND MUHAMMAD TAQI USMANI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Petition for leave to Appeal No. 1l-R(S)/1988 NADIR KHAN and another--Petitioners THE STATE--Respondent (From the judgment Dated 23-12-1987 of the Federal Shariat Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 91/L of 1987). Criminal Petition
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, PIR MUHAMMAD KARAM SHAH AND MUHAMMAD TAQI USMANI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal for leave to Appeal No.1LR/1988 NADIR KHAN and anothers THE STATE--Respondent Criminal for Leave to Appeal No.1LR/1988 SADIQ JAN
VS
THE STATE--Respondent
Law: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
Section: 3,4
(a) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)-- ---Arts.3 4--Narcotic concealed in car--Knowledge and awareness would be attributed to the incharge of vehicle--Accused, licensed drivers, having charge of vehicle for a long journey, held, must be saddled with necessary knowledge with regard to the vehicle and its contents--Explanation showing ignorance of concealed narcotic actually strengthened conclusion, that accused had knowledge and were aware of that, rather than weakening the same. Said Shah v. The State P L D 1987 S C 288; Muhammad Shah v. The State P L D 1984 S C 278; Nazir Hussain v. The State 1971 SCMR 404; Zahiruddin v. the State P L D 1988 FSC 29 and Ashfaq Hussain v. The State PLD 1987 1638 ref. (b) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)-- ---Arts.3 4--Sentence--Treatment to be afforded to accused a mere carrier--Whether such carrier was entitled to lenient treatment----Considerations.---[ Sentence]. It is one of the maxims of the criminal law that a confessing accused is to be dealt with leniently. There are reasons for it because though belated such a confession assists the administration of justice, lends credibility to the prosecution and helps locating the persons who have greater responsibilities in the matter than the criminal himself. But such leniency cannot be claimed or shown to a person who denies the commission of the offence itself to the end rendering no help to identify the real and major culprits and only resorts to it by way, of an alternative argument to rely on being a helpless destitute carrier. There is no principle on which such a mitigation can be claimed. (c) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)-- ---Arts. 3 4--Samples of narcotic, taking of--Forty-nine bags of narcotic recovered--Required evidence to connect report with samples available--Notwithstanding omission to produce carriers of samples, taking of samples from everyone of the packets, held, was not necessary in circumstances. (d) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)-- ---Arts. 3 4--Original…
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