Find a Lawyer

[Lahore]

Criminal Revision No. 68 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1984, decided on 2nd February, 1985.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

---Ss. 426 & 439--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 382--Reliance of prosecution on remand application and bail application--Investigation Officer stating that accused were arrested in previous case after their arrest in instant case--Plea that accused were already under arrest in another case at time of occurrence--Plea, held, was without any substance because no documentary evidence was priced in defence nor it could be explained as to how bail application of other case was brought on file of instant case.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---S. 382--Prosecution version supported by complainant and police officers--Nothing on record available to suggest any motive against witnesses for false implication of accused--Prosecution evidence, held, was rightly accepted.

W.R. Gilani for Petitioners.

Ch. Abdul Rashid for the State.

Amjad and Zahid Mahmood alias Chui petitioners were convicted under section 382 and sentenced to R.I. for two years each vide judgment, dated 28-8-1984 of Magistrate First Class, Lahore. They challenged their conviction and sentence in the Sessions Court but their appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 10th November, 1984. They have come up in revision to this Court.

2. The prosecution version is that on 14th April, 1982 at about 71" p.m. both the petitioners armed with Khanjars confronted Shaukat Sakla complainant in Muhammadi Street, Samanabad, commanded him to surrender whatever he had snatched his bag containing golden bangles and fled away. He followed them raising alarm and a police party consisting of Muhammad Bashir A.S.I. and other police officials apprehended them. The bag containing the golden bangles were recovered and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.A.

3. 1Ihave heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. His main argument is that on 14th April, 1982 when this occurrence is alleged to have taken place the petitioners were already under arrest in case F.I.R. No. 69 of 1981, dated 17-2-1981 under sections 457 and 380, A P.P.C. In this connection the learned counsel has drawn my attention to remand application, dated 15-4-1982 (page 7 of the file) and bail application moved on behalf of Amjad Ali petitioner allegedly on 13-4-1982 in case F.I.R. No. 69 of 1981, dated 17-2-1981 (page 47 of the file). The remand application, dated 15-4-1982 contains a note that Amjad and Zahid (petitioners herein) are also under arrest in case F.I.R. No. 69 of 1981, dated 17-2-1981. The bail application shows that on 13-4-1982 notice was issued to the State for 15-4-1982. It is submitted that these documents clearly show that the petitioners were already under arrest on 14-4-1982, therefore, the prosecution story is a mere concoction. The contention is without any substance. In cross-examination Muhammad Bashir A.S.I. (P.W.5) stated that he had' arrested the petitioners in case F. I. R. 69 of 1981 on 14-4-1982 after their arrest in B the present case. He denied the suggestion that the petitioners were under arrest in the said case on 12-4-1982. In the circumstances, the note in the remand application, dated 15-4-1982 that the petitioners were also under arrest in case F .I . R . No. 69 of 1981 is of no avail to the petitioners as it does not show that they had been arrested in the said case before 14-4-1982. As far the bail application made in case F.I.R. No. 69 of 1981 the learned counsel is unable to explain how and when it was brought on the file of this case. If the petitioners were actually under arrest on 13-4-1982 in case F.I.R. No. 69 of 1981 they could produce documentary evidence in defence to establish this fact but they chose not to do so. The case of the petitioners in the trial Court rather was that they were arrested from their house. A suggestion to that effect was put to Muhammad Bashir A.S.I. but he denied it as incorrect. The prosecution version is supported by the complainant and the A.S.Is. Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Bashir. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the complainant or the aforesaid police officers had any motive to falsely implicate the petitioners in this case, I therefore, the prosecution evidence has been rightly accepted by the Courts below. There is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine. The Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1984 automatically fails.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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