Case Details

Citation(s)
1952 SLG 117 1952 SLD 117 1952 PLD 60
Lahore High Court
Petition No. 278 of 1951, decided on 23rd October, 1951, under section 439,
SHABIR AHMAD, J
Maula Bakhsh Khizar Tamimi, for Petitioner. S. A. Mahmud, Assistant to the Advocate-General, for
Respondent.

GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN, alias LAUNDKHOR

VS

CROWN

Law:

Section:

(a) Police Act (V of 1863)---------S: 34 (6)-"Drunk"-Mere taking of intoxicant not enough-person must be completely. under its effect. The Legislature has used the expression " is drunk " and not " has drunk." Even if the other ingredients of the section were established, the-mere fact that a person can be proved to have taken liquor is not sufficient to brim his case within the four corners of section 34 of the Police Act. The clause under consideration applies to those persons whose senses are comp­letely under the effect of the intoxicant they had taken, be the intoxicant liquid or not. If, for instance, a person had eaten opium or had smoked chandu or charas, his case could fall under section 34 of the Police Act, if it could be proved not only that he had taken the intoxicant but also that he was under its effect to the extent indicated above. If the intoxi­cation has gone so far that the person under its influence cannot even walk properly, he would be not only drunk but also incapable of taking care of himself, and his case will satisfy two of the three alternative ingredients of clause (6). (b) Police Act (V of 1861)------ ----S. 34-" Riotous "-Meaning. There is no ground for holding that the expression "riotous" in the Police Act was intended to have .a meaning similar to the not dissimilar word "rioting" defined, in section 146 of the Penal Code, and it appears that it was intended to have no other but its. ordinary meaning. The ordinary dic­tionary meaning of the word riotous conveys the sense of a person who is guilty of--wanton or disorderly behaviour, dis­order, uproar or tumult. (c) Police Act (V of 1861)------ ----S. 34-"Annoyance"-Shout­ing of slogans or arguing with police in loud voice or making un­called for remarks, about highly placed public servants-Whether would necessarily result in'' annoyance ". Shouting of slogans by people collected at a spot can hardly be conclusive proof of annoyance. The act of the petitioner in arguing with the police in a loud voice and snaking uncalled for remarks about highly placed public servants of Pakistan, held, not to have resulted in annoyance to the residents of the locality or the, passengers…
🔒
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