Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 65 of 1964, decided on 25th March 1970.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--------
---
S. 103‑Search witness‑Court should insist on strict compliance with provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure‑Any departure from rule to be strongly deprecated‑Search witnesses accompanying Police Party belonging to distant villagers and no witness from locality coming forward to corroborate them‑Testimony of search witnesses, held, could not be relied upon.
Ishaq Muhammad (absent) for Petitioner.
Ch. Masood Ahmad Ghuman for the State.
Date of hearing : 25th March 1970.
Haqdad Khan petitioner was convicted under section 19/11/78 (Arms Act) on the 17th of October 1963, by Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Khan, then Magistrate Ist Class, Mianwali, who sentenced him to R. I., for one year and on the failure of his appeal in the Court of Sessions on the 14th of December 1963, he filed the pre sent petition under section 439, Cr. P: C., for the revision of these orders, which was admitted to hearing on the 21st of January 1964.
It was taken up today but neither the petitioner nor his counsel put in appearance and after waiting for then, for quite some time I have gone through the record with the assistance of the counsel for the State.
It was alleged that as a result of a search in the House of the petitioner two 12 bore guar P. 1 and P. 2, long with 6 cartridges P. 3 to P. 8 and a .343 rifle P. 9 along with 8 and a .303 rifle P. 10 to 17 were recovered froth under the bhoosa and straw of wheat in a manger on' the 30th of April 1969, which were taken into possession ride Exh. P. A. attested by two disinterested witnesses, namely, Abbas Khan and Ghulam P. Ws, Abbas Ghulam P. W. I, belongs to Kamar Shani situate at a distance of 8/9 miles while P. W. 3 Ghulam nadir was a resident of Dala Mirwala a village situate at a distance of about 4 miles from the 'village of the petitioner and had been brought along by the S. I. with him for the specific purpose of attending on this search. The S. I. had registered a case beforehand at the police station under section 19 of the Arms Act on the strength of a secret information before proceeding on this raid. There was an admitted background of this raid on the petitioner as only a few days ago his two brothers and some other persons had assaulted the S. I. and some foot constables in his party for which they were prosecuted under section 307/353/34 p, p. C. It was, therefore, necessary that the S. I. had taken the precaution in joining some respect-able of the locality in the search as required under section 103, Cr. P. C. It has been observed in many cases that the Court should insist on strict compliance with the requirements of these provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and any departure from the rule should be strongly deprecated. The evidence of the two recovery witnesses thus required a close scrutiny. There being no witness from the locality to corroborate them; it was not safe to rely on their testimony. I, therefore, accept this petition and setting aside the orders of the lower Courts acquit him of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail and his bond shall stand discharged.
Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer