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 Revision No. 469 of 1984, heard on 16th October, 1984.
‑‑‑Art. 11‑‑No independent witness from public produced to prove that accused was drunk‑‑Prosecution did not obtain report of Chemical Examiner‑‑Opinion of doctor as such not found to be conclusive‑‑Courts below not properly appreciated case while convicting accused‑‑Accused acquitted in circumstances.
Kh. Muhammad Sharif for Petitioner.
Muhammad Sharif Butt for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th October, 1984.
The facts giving rise to this petition are that Muhammad Rashid petitioner was tried by Assistant Commissioner, Saddar Sialkot, under Article 11 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 who sentenced him to 9 months' R.I. His appeal failed on 12‑9‑1984, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel submits that prosecution has not produced any independent witnesses to prove the offence of the petitioner. Conversely the learned counsel for the State 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 to prove the offence prosecution produced Atta Ullah A.S.I. P.W. 1 and Dr. Muhammad Nawaz Medical Officer P.W. 3, first two witnesses stated that they had found the petitioner intoxicant whereas Dr. Muhammad Nawaz opined that on examination, he found the petitioner under the influence of liquor. It is thus, very much obvious that no independent witness from the public was produced to prove that the petitioner was found drunk so much so the prosecution did not care to obtain report of the Chemical Examiner. In the circumstances of the case opinion of the Doctor does not appear to be conclusive. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the case.
4. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt the petitioner is acquitted of the charge.
H. A.
Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer