Find a Lawyer

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 11‑‑Conviction for drinking‑Courts below found to have properly appreciated evidence on facts‑Held, such finding cannot be interfered with

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

------Art. 185(3)‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 11 read with Art. 6‑Conviction for drinking alcohol‑Words "taken an intoxicant" used to define "drinking" in Art. 6 of Order Cannot be restricted to an instant taking or taking in presence of witnesses but also includes being found to have taken an intoxicant. Interpretation of statutes].

The State v. Abdul Majid (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1983) ref.

Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 21st February, 1984.

M. S. H. QURAISM, J.‑‑‑

Petitioner Rahim Dad was found in a drunken state on 6‑2‑1983 at about 6 p. m. near Tonga‑stand, Fawara Chowk, Rawalpindi. He was taken by the police before a medical Officer who after examining him certified that he had taken an intoxicant. A chemical analysis of the samples taken of his blood and urine also disclosed the presence of alcohol. He was accordingly tried under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (IV of 1979), in the result of which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year. His appeal having failed, he filed a revision before the Lahore High Court but the same, too, was dismissed in limine.

2. On facts, we find that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence 'and as such there is no scope for interference with their finding. A Learned counsel, however, argued that it was the actual act of drinking and not being found in a state of drunkenness which constituted the offence under the Order and that as such the petitioner who had not been seen in the act, of drinking could not be held guilty under Article 11. Such contention had been raised in The State v. Abdul Majid (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1983) but had been repelled upon the view taken by this Court that the words "takes an intoxicant" used to define "drinking" in Article 6 of the Order cannot be restricted to an instant taking or taking in presence of witnesses but will also include being found to have taken an intoxicant.

3. No case is thus made out for grant of leave. The petition is dismissed.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.