Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAKIRULLAH VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALIKhan Abdul Qayyum Khan,Nemo
1968 P Cr
1968 P Cr. L J 1783
[Supreme Court]
Present: Fazal-e‑Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ
SHAKIRULLAH‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 15‑P of 1968, decided on 21st May 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 8th March 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1968).
Constitution of Pakistan (1962),
Art. 58(3)‑‑Criminal case‑-- Evidence of material prosecution witnesses, on which petitioner convicted, not correctly represented in order of Nigh Court‑ --Special leave to appeal granted‑--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 231 & 235.
Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 21st May 1968.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑‑On examining the records we find that the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses on which petitioner's conviction is based is not correctly represented in the order of the High Court.
Sikander Khan, Sub‑Inspector Police, P. W. 6, under whose supervision the house of the petitioner and his brother Sharifullah was searched was positive that when he entered the house neither of them was preset at that time. On the contrary Arab Gul, P. W. 4, deposed that when the Police encircled the house of Shakirullah he saw him throwing a bag containing forged currency notes and sanchas in his compound. Similarly, while Musali Khan (P. W. 2). deposed that Rehan (P. W. 3) had brought a bag and handed over to the police during the search of the house of Shakirullah, Rehan himself stated that the bag remained lying in his house and the police recovered it from there.
Prima facie if the house was encircled by the police as deposed to by the P. Ws., there was no possibility of the petitioner and his co‑accused escaping. However, as seen, the Sub‑Inspector Police did not find either of the two in the house. The, evidence relating to the production of the bag containing forged currency notes was equally of dubious value.
In this view the interest of justice requires that the evidence on which the petitioner's conviction is based, he re‑examined by this Court.
Leave to appeal is granted.
Leave granted.