Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 566 of 1984, heard on 6th November, 1984.

‑‑‑Art. 11‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.103‑‑Evidence‑ Independent persons from vicinity available yet not joined and cited as witnesses‑‑Delay of 20 days in sending sealed parcels to Chemical Examiner not explained‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.‑ [Witness].

Rana Abdul Majid for Petitioner.

Ch. M. Ibrahim for the State.

Date of hearing: 6th November, 1984.

The facts giving rise to this revision are that Muhammad Yasin petitioner was tried by Magistrate Section 30 under Article 11 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to one year's R.I. and 10 stripes. His appeal failed on 26‑9‑1984, hence this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecution mainly relied on the police officials and did not care to produce any independent witness. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that according to the prosecution case the petitioner was found drunk near railway crossing of Basti Farooqabad, that prosecution produced police officials to prove the crime; that although independent persons from the vicinity could have been joined yet the prosecution did not care to cite them as witnesses and that there is unexplained delay of 20 days in sending the sealed parcels to the chemical examiner.

4. For what has been found above, I am of the view that it would be in accordance with the safe administration of justice in' criminal cases that the petitioner be given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Order accordingly. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

S.A.

Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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