Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAFIQ VS Respondent: THE STATEKhuda Dad Khan Barki,Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State
1991 P Cr
1991 P Cr. LJ 914
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision No.1122 of 1980, heard on 27th February 1991.
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)
----S. 13---Appreciation of evidence---Knife recovered from accused was not produced at the time of cross-examination of witness---Knife was duly exhibited during trial---Accused did not make any request for production of knife at the time of cross-examination of a witness---Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Khuda Dad Khan Barki for Petitioner.
Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State
Date of hearing: 27th February 1991.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner Muhammad Rafiq was convicted by Ch. Muhammad Akram,, Magistrate Section 30, Okara, for an offence under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance, and sentenced to one year's R.I. vide judgment dated 21-3-1979. He appealed, which was dismissed by Malik Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, vide judgment dated 3-6-1980, on the ground that the petitioner had already served the entire period of his sentence. In this revision, the petitioner impugns the judgments of both the Courts below.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has admitted that the petitioner has already served the entire period of his sentence. On merits it is contended that when the witness was being cross-examined, the case property, i.e., the knife, was not produced in Court. The petition,, is resisted by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and do riot find any substance in the submissions. The knife, which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner, was duly exhibited at the trial, which is the only requirement of law. If during cross-examination, he wanted to put any question with regard to the knife to the witness, he could have made a request to that effect. I have noticed no such request was ever, made in the light of this discussion, the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
S.A./M-2688/L Petition dismissed.