Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Respondent: THE STATE
1976 P Cr
1976 P Cr. L J 498
[Lahore]
Before Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J
MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑Appellant
versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1974, decided on 28th October 1975.
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑
‑‑ S. 13‑Recovery‑Unlicensed knife recovered at instance of accused, and recovery witnessed by two prosecution witnesses having no, enmity with accused to involve him falsely‑Conviction maintained in, circumstances.‑[Recovery].
Farrukh Ameen for Appellants.
J. V. Gardner for the State.
Dates of hearing: 27th and 28th October 1975.
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Sleem, aged 25 years, Bus conductor, was tried for the possession of a knife of prohibited length without a licence. Sh. Abdul Waheed, Sessions Judge, Multan convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months vide his judgment and order passed on 13‑7‑1974. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently with that passed in the connected murder case.
2. According to the prosecution the appellant was arrested on 12‑8‑1972 in the connected murder case in which he was alleged to have caused murder of Samar Hussain and on 13‑8‑1972, he led to the recovery of a knife (P. 1) with a blade of 4 " length after digging it out from under the ground from a place adjacent to wall of Pir Gohar Sultan Shah mosque situated in Mohallah Pir Gohar Sultan Shah, Multan City. The investigating officer secured it vide memo. Exh. P. A. The recovery of knife from the appellant was proved by the investigating officer, Ghulam Sarwar (P. W. 2) and Muhammad Siddiq (P. W. 1), a witness from the public. The testimony of the recovery witnesses is not discrepant on any material point. None of the recovery witnesses had any enmity with the appellant so as to falsely implicate him. The prosecution has proved the recovery of the knife (P. S.). It the instance of the appellant. It is not the case of the defence that ~he blade of the recovered knife is not of prohibited length and according ;o the prosecution the length of the blade is 4 . The appellant did not produce any licence nor had taken the defence plea that any licence was field by him in respect of the recovered knife. The appeal has not been seriously pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant in view of the conviction of the appellant in the connected murder case the circumstances of the case and on the evidence on record am satisfied that prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
3. As a result of above discussion the conviction and sentence of he appellant passed by the learned trial Judge are maintained and his appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed