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. 1314 of 1969, heard on 6th April, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 6‑‑West Pakistan Food-grains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957‑‑Accused allegedly apprehended at a checking post while they were trying to pass through, Basmati rice loaded on truck without having any transport permit‑‑At time of recording evidence, disputed rice which was property seized, not produced in Court nor any explanation offered for its non‑production, nor any expert's evidence led to show that rice seized was Basmati rice and none else‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances.
Muhammad Sharif for Petitioners.
Nasim Iqbal for A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th April, 1985.
This is a revision petition filed by Muhammad Sharif and another, petitioners, against the judgment of a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore, dated 12‑11‑1969, maintaining their conviction under section 6 of the Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 19581, but reducing their sentences to a fine of Rupees One Thousand (Rs.1,000) each or in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months each.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 26‑11‑1967 at 4‑00 a.m., Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Asghar, petitioners, were apprehended at Checking Post, Shahdara, when they were trying to pass through two hundred maunds of Basmati rice loaded to pass through on a truck, for which they had no transport permit.
3. The name of Mr. M.A. Qayyum, Advocate for the petitioner, appears in the cause list for today's date of hearing, but he has not turned up. Mr. Nasim Iqbal, Advocate, appears for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the record. At the time when the evidence was recorded, the disputed rice, which was the property seized, was not produced in Court nor any explanation offered for its non‑production, nor any expert's evidence was led to show that the rice seized was Basmati rice and none else. In these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted. The conviction and sentences of the petitioners are set aside.
H.A.K. Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer