Find a Lawyer

---Art. 11--First offender--Probation order--Accused found intoxicated at public place--Accused first offender, repentant and desirous of mending himself--No injury to any person nor any damage to property caused by accused--Accused committing offence due to mere thoughtlessness, inadvertence; ignorance or by force of circumstances--Object of punishment in Islamic system of justice being reformation of accused, interest of justice, field, would be served if instead of sending accused to jail, he is placed under supervision of Probation Officer--Probation order passed "-in circumstances.- [Sentence].

M. Akmal Salimi for Appellant.

Nasim Iqbal for the State.

Date of hearing: 14th June, 1987.

This is an appeal against the order dated 3-3-1987 passed by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Malik, Magistrate Ist Class Multan whereby Siraj Din son of Noor Muhammad the appellant has been found guilty of offence punishable under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to three years' R.I. The allegations against the present appellant are that he was found intoxicated on a public place on 10-10-1985 at mid-night near Chungi No.11 Multan.

2. The short facts are that Manzoor Ahmad ASI (P.W.3) was on Gusht duty alongwith other staff of the police and received a complaint that a person was making noise at Chungi No.11 Multan, the police party apprehended him and sent him to the Hospital where he was examined by Dr. Imtiaz Elahi Piracha (P W.4) who has expressed that the smell of alcohol was coming from the breath of the examinee, Pupils were dilated, speech was effected, disturbed and the gait was staggering. According to him the examinee was under the influence of alcoholic intoxication. The A.S.I. therefore, sent a report to the thana where the F.I.R. was formally recorded by Shimla, MHC (P.W.2). After the completion of the necessary investigation the challan was put up before the Court.

3. At the trial the accused denied the allegations and in answer to a question as to why this case was against him, replied "due to enmity" but did not appear as his own witness in disproof of the prosecution case however, he examined one Abdul Ghani son of Atta Muhammad caste Dogar an old man who stated at the trial that he had gone to the thana to get the accused released but was not successful, there he had learnt that the accused was found under the influence of liquor. According to this witness the accused was a gentleman and had not used liquor before.

4. At the trial the prosecution examined five witnesses. P.W.1 Wall Muhammad, a Razakar, supported the prosecution story and Manzoor Ahmad P.W.3 narrated the circumstances in which the accused was arrested and sent to Hospital for medical examination. Dr. Imtiaz Ilahi Piracha (P.W.4) verified the medico-legal report Ex.PB, P.W.5 Shah Nawaz another member of the police party also supported the prosecution case. The defence of the accused was that he was apprehended to his house. The trial Court, however, did not accept this version and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to assail the order of the trial Court but finding that the prosecution case was fully substantiated by the evidence on record and the medical evidence was against the appellant and the apprehension of the accused was fully established. The learned counsel prayed for a lenient view and submitted that the accused is now repentant and wants to mend himself. We find from the record that no injury to any person was caused by the appellant nor any property was damaged. He is a first offender and is ashamed of committing this offence. The basic object of punishment in Islamic system of justice is the reformation of the accused. A person who is himself penitent suffers more in mental p agony and the shame of committing the offence. In such circumstances it is desirable that the first offender should not be sent to Jail if the nature of the case so permits. We find that the appellant on account of first lapse in life and because of mere thoughtlessness, inadvertence, ignorance, or by force of his circumstances has committed this offence for which he is penitent. We, therefore, are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if instead of sending him to Jail make a probation order requiring him to be placed under the supervision of the Probation Officer, Multan for a period of one year. The appellant shall file a bound in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety undertaking that he shall keep peace and will abstain from intoxicants and crimes, be of good behaviour and appear before the Court and receive sentence if called upon during the period. The appellant shall appear before the Probation Officer at Multan at least once a month who would submit his report about the behaviour and conduct of the appellant after' every three months and in case the accused does not behave properly-he shall be called to serve, the sentence. The appellant shall furnish the bond within one month copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Sessions Judge Multan who shall inform this Court after one month if the bonds have been filed or not. The case to come up with the reports of the Probation Officer after one year.

S.A./362/FS Probation ordered.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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