Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 94 of 1985, decided on 29th September, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3‑ Revision‑‑Witnesses supporting prosecution case and no enmity proved against them‑‑Concurrent findings of two Courts below given against accused‑‑Judgments of Courts below well‑reasoned and not calling for any interference‑‑Revision against such findings dismissed.

1985 P Cr. L J 2418 ref.

‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Revision application, held, was only competent when misreading of evidence or some patent illegality was pointed out.

Mirza Atiq Baig for Applicant.

This Revision Application under section 439, Cr.P.C. has been filed by Faqir Hussain against his conviction under section 3 of Prohibition Enforcement of Hadd Order, 1979.

Briefly the facts are that on 6‑3‑1983, A.S.I. Tikka Khan of Orangi Police Station, Karachi, at Banaras Chowk stopped one Taxi fur the purpose of checking as he was on Traffic duty on that day. As soon as Taxi stopped one person opened the door and ran away while applicant was apprehended and police secured 7 K.Gs. of Charas tying by the side of applicant. The case proceeded and applicant was convicted under section 3 of Prohibition Enforcement (Hadd) Order, 1979 by Additional City Magistrate, Court No. 3 West Karachi on 16‑5‑1.9234, sentenced him to suffer R. I. for 12 months and to pay fine of R, .1 ,000 in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for four months more.

Being aggrieved the applicant filed appeal under section 408, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Sessions, which was dismissed by the III -Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi on 25‑6‑1985.

I have heard Mr. Mirza Atiq Baig. It is contended that Charas was not found from exclusive possession of the applicant and both the Courts have not appreciated the evidence of witnesses. He has cited 1985 P Cr. L J 2418.

In the present case prosecution examined two witnesses in support of the case. A.S.I.P. Tikka Khan and Taxi‑Driver Bazi Khan, have supported the case and no enmity whatsoever has been considered and discussed proved with these witnesses. The evidence of both the above witnesses and defence witnesses has been considered and discussed by Additional City Magistrate and learned Additional Session Judge Karachi who dismissed the appeal. The revision application is only competent when misreading of evidence or some patent illegality is pointed out. There are two concurrent findings. Both the judgment are well-reasoned and do not call for any interference. The Revision application having no merits is dismissed in limine.

M.Y.H. Petition 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.