Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 460 of 1984, decided on 28th January, 1985.

‑‑‑Art. 11‑‑Accused found under influence of alcohol‑‑Doctor independent witness‑‑Accused examined by Doctor immediately after arrest‑‑A.S.I. having no serious enmity against accused‑‑Defence evidence not rebutting prosecution evidence‑‑Evidence under circumstances, held, properly appreciated by Courts below, conviction, therefore, was maintained‑‑Revision dismissed.

‑‑‑Art. 11‑‑Quantum of sentence‑‑Accused previous non‑convict‑ Sentence reduced from 2 years' R.I. to one year R.I.‑‑Revision dismissed.

Taqi Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 28th January, 1985.

Muhammad Younas petitioner was tried by Magistrate First Class, Sialkot under Article 11 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979.

2. To prove its case, prosecution produced four witnesses. Allah Ditta A.S.I. P.W.2 stated that he alongwith Muhammad Younas P.W.3 and Walayat Ali P.W.4 were on patrol duty in village Bharth. They received secret information that a person under the influence of liquor was raising noise on bridge of Palkhoo. They went there and finding the information to be correct, apprehended Muhammad Younae petitioner and sent him to hospital for examination. Dr. Rizwan Ahmad P.W.1 stated that on examination he found that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner raised plea of false implication at the instance of Atta Ullah A.S.I. He produced Ghulam Muhammad D.W.1 and Muhammad Aslam D.W.2 in defence who stated that Atta Ullah A.S.I. was annoyed with the petitioner and that the petitioner is a gentleman.

4. The trial Court vide its order, dated 15‑8‑1984 convicted the petitioner under Article 11 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 and sentenced him to two years' R.I. The appeal filed by the petitioner has dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 23‑8‑1984 hence this revision.

5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated by the police and that the prosecution witnesses were not reliable. No one has appeared for the State.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that Dr. Rizwan Ahmad is a quite independent witness. He examined the petitioner immediately after his arrest by the police. He has stated with reasons that the petitioner was found under the strong influence of alcohol. The A. S. I. Atta Ullah had also no serious enmity to falsely involve the petitioner in the case. The defence evidence does not rebut prosecution case and its evidence. The two Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and given good reasons in support of their decision. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been convicted.

7. This brings me to the question of sentence. Since the petitioner is not a previous convict, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence of a imprisonment of two years' R.I. to one year R.I. which would meet the case. Order accordingly.

S.A.

Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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