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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.7 of 1976, decided on 27th January, 1976.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑11‑1975 in Criminal Appeal No. 751/75).
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (X of 1965), Ss.13 & 20‑‑‑Accused petitioner leading Investigating Officer to spot where Chhuri lay buried in ground‑‑Held, special knowledge of petitioner unmistakably leads to conclusion of‑his vicarious possession of Chhuri for which he was rightly convicted and sentenced being unable to produce its licence‑ Leave to appeal refused.
Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sved Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 27th January, 1976.
The petitioner has been convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, for an offence under section 13/20 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to one years' R.I. His appeal to the High Court has failed and he now seeks leave to appeal to this Court.
It appears that on 23‑5‑1972 at 4‑30 p.m. the petitioner was involved in an affray in Bazar Kalen in the course of which, he took out a Chhuri from the fold of his trousers and caused injuries to two persons. A case was registered against him and another under section 307/34, P.P.C. In the course of the investigation, he led the Police to the recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri Exh. P.1 from the graveyard of Imam Sahib. The Chhuri lay buried and was recovered by the Investi gating Officer Manzoor Hussain P.W.3 at pointing out of the petitioner in the presence of Muhammad Afzal P.W.1. The Courts have believed this evidence of the recovery. The petitioner has not produced any licence for the possession of the Chhuri.
The only point made by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Chhuri was recovered from the graveyard which was accessible to the public and he cannot be held liable for its possession.
As pointed out already, Chhuri lay buried in the ground and the petitioner led the Investigating Officer precisely to the spot where it lay buried. This special knowledge as to the spot where lay buried in the graveyard unmistakably leads to the conclusion of the petitioner's vicarious possession for which he was rightly convicted and sentenced, being unable to produce its licence.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
S.Q. Leave refused
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer