Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 637 of 1984, heard on 31st March, 1985.

Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance (VII of 1998)--

---S. 5--Two sets of prosecution witnesses one comprised of police officials and the other from public--Public men refusing to support prosecution and appearing us defence witness--Police officers supporting prosecution case--Held, to rely on utteorroborated testimony of police officials would not be in accordance with safe administration of justice in criminal cases--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances.

Malik Waqar Saleem for Petitioner.

Sh. Muhammad Islam for the State.

Date of hearing: 31st March, 1985.

The facto giving rise to this revistuit ore that Muhammad Saeed and others, the petitioners were tried by Magistrate 1st Class Gujranwala

under section 5 of Gambling Ordittatece. On the conclusion of the trial the petitioners were convicted under section 5 of the Gambling Ordinance and sentenced to a fine of 1(b.500,

in default thereof 2 months' S.I The appeal filed by the petitioners failed on 18-6-1984.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of, the Courts below.

3. Is have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the prosecution has examined witnesses namely Yaqub Ali, Moharrir Head Constable who has drawn up the F.I.R., Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.1. P.W.2 and Muhammad Afzal, A.S.I. P.W.3 have been produced to prove that the petitioners were seen gambling and that Noor Hussain, the only public man having been given up by the prosecution was examined as D.W. 1 and that he did not support the allegations against the petitioners. From the statement of facts given above, it is very much obvious that there were two sets of the prosecution witnesses. One comprised of the police officials and the other of public men and that the public man has refused to support the prosecution. That being the position I am of the view that it would not be in accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of police officials.

4. For what has been stated above, giving them the benefit of doubt, the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. The fine if paid shall be refunded to them.

S.A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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