Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Respondent: STATE
1989 S C M R 1867
1989 S C M R 1867
Present: Javid lqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jail, JJ
MUHAMMAD ASLAM Petitioner
versus
THE STATE Respondent
Criminal Petition No.339 of 1988, decided on 19th April, 1989.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 4‑4‑1988 in Criminal Appeal No.1 75 of 1988).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
‑‑‑Ss.170 & 171‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Accused was apprehended at the spot wearing the uniform of an A.S.I although he was merely a foot constable‑‑Offence a grave one‑‑Uniform was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer who came to the spot‑‑Investigating Officer was not inimical to the accused‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989.
JUDGMENT GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Petitioner Muhammad Aslam seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 4‑4‑1988.
Muhammad Siddique complainant and his nephew Khalilur Rehman resided in Ittehad Colony Samanabad, Lahore. Originally they belonged to Chak No.65‑L, Police Station Burjwala Sahiwal. One Mst. Kanizan resident of the same Chak worked as maid servant in the house of Khalilur Rehman.
A month before the alleged occurrence Mst. Kanizan was taken back to her village by her mother. Subsequently she came to Lahore in the office of a newspaper. From there she was sent to Darul Aman. Later on she was brought back to the house of Khalilur Rehman by her mother.
On 30‑7‑1987 at 5 a.m., petitioner Muhammad Aslam alongwith Muhammad Akram and Zafar lqbal co‑accused came in a car. They raided the house of Muhammad Siddique and Khalilur Rehman. Muhammad Aslam was wearing the uniform of an A.S.I. of police. He introduced himself as such. Muhammad Akram and Zafar lqbal were also in police uniform.
Muhammad Aslam told Muhammad Siddique that a case of abduction had been registered against him and his nephew Khalilur Rehman and that he had to arrest them. The petitioner then said that Muhammad Siddique could be let off if he paid some money.
The petitioner sat in the drawing room of Muhammad Siddique who told his friends and Mohalladars and he started to arrange for the money. Residents of the locality gathered. Muhammad Aslam became nervous. That was noticed by all present. Muhammad Siddique also suspected about the conduct of the petitioner. He rang up C.I.A. and enquired if any case of abduction had been registered against him. He was told, "No".
Accordingly Muhammad Siddique and others apprehended Muhammad Aslam. He was still in the uniform of an A.S.I.
In the meanwhile Muhammad Akram and Zafar Iqbal took away Khalilur Rehman in a car to some unknown place. Police was informed of that.
Liaqat Mirza, S.I./S.H.O., Police Station, Samanabad came to the spot. On the application of Muhammad Siddique a Criminal case under section 342/34, P.P.C. was registered.
Muhammad Aslam was further charged under section 170/171/161, P.P.C. All of them were tried by a Special Court for Speedy Trials at Lahore. Muhammad Aslam was convicted. He was sentenced to three years' R.I. under section 161, P.P.C., two years' R.1. under section 170, P.P.C. and further two years' R.I. under section 171, P.P.C. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Muhammad Akram and Zafar lqbal were acquitted.
Muhammad Aslam appealed to the Lahore High Court that was partly allowed. He was acquitted of the charge under section 161, P.P.C. His conviction and sentence under sections 170 and 171, P.P.C. was maintained. However, the same was ordered to run concurrently.
Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was not legally maintainable because it was on the basis of the same evidence on which two others had been acquitted. This was contrary to the rule of consistency.
It was further submitted that the conviction under section 170 P.P.C. was not warranted by law.
The contentions have no force. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot. He was wearing the uniform of an A.S.I. although he was a mere Foot Constable. This is a very grave offence. The uniform was taken into possession by the S.H.O. who came to the spot.
There is no evidence on record to show that the S.H.O. was in any way inimical to the petitioner. We don't think it is a fit case for leave to appeal.
Dismissed.
M.A.K./M‑951/S Leave refused.