Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAZAR MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s):Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, Muhammad Munir Khan, Maulana Muhammad Taqi
Usmani Title: NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 13/S of 1994 Date of Judgment:1995-04-16 Reported As: 1995 SCMR 1497 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition arises from the facts that Nazar Muhammad petitioner was tried under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd.) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Order), on the charge of keeping 599 bottles of foreign origin liquor which were recovered from his possession on 3-2-1991. 48 bottles of the liquor were recovered from the car driven by him and 551 bottles of liquor were recovered from Godown on his pointation on the same day. Abdul Majeed P.W.1 and Ghaus Bakkah P.W.2 have supported the recovery of the liquor from the petitioner. The Forensic Science Laboratory's report reveals that the bottles contain alcohol. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner raised the plea of enmity and produced Naik Muhammad D.W.1 and Abdul Majid D.W.2 who stated that nothing was recovered from the car of the petitioner and that he was of good moral character. 2. The trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to-- (i) three years' R.I., a fine of Rs,15,000 or in default six months' R.I., and ten stripes, under Article 3 of the Prohibition Order; and (ii) two years' R.I., a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default 3 months' R.I., and ten stripes, under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order. ' On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court acquitted him of the charge under Article 3 of the Prohibition Order but has maintained his conviction and sentence under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him. Hence this petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The conviction of the petitioner rests upon the statement of Abdul Majid (P.W.1) and Ghaus Bakhsh (P.W.2). The two Courts below have
---
## Page 2
believed their statements. We do not see any infirmity in their statements warranting rejection thereof. The petitioner has failed to prove any enmity with the recovery witnesses. The statements made by the defence witnesses do not help him in any manner. No case for interference with the well-reasoned judgment of the Federal Shariat Court is made out. 4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.