Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision No.463 of 1976, heard on 4th August, 1987.
---S.3/14--Accused transporting paddy bags from District S to District L without permit or licence and apprehended when they had entered limits of the other District--Merely because one prosecution witness did not support prosecution case, would not mean that other witnesses should also be disbelieved--Concurrent findings of Courts below and there being no material irregularity or illegality committed, -revision petition before High Court dismissed.
Syed Mumtaz Hussain Bokhari for C.M. Latif for Petitioner.
Imtiaz Ahmad for the State.
Date of hearing: 4th August, 1987.
Muhammad Yousaf, Karamat Masih, Rehmat Masih, Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Hussain and Abdul Rashid were sentenced to fine of Rs.200 or in default two months' R.I. each under section 3/14 of Rice and Paddy Control Order 1972 on the allegation that they were smuggling rice and paddy across the District Border, by a learned Magistrate 1st Class, Sheikhupura vide judgment dated 4-6-1975. They challenged their conviction and sentence before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura through an appeal which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated. 3-4-1976. Their conviction and sentence was maintained.
2. The allegation against them was that A.S.I: Muhammad Ibrahim PW 4 on 4-12-1973 was present on Naka .Bandi within the limits of village Khootian. The Naka Bandi was arranged at the border of Districts Sheikhupura and Lyallpur (Faisalabad) at about 9/10 P.M. Three carts loaded with 127 bags of paddy were apprehended after they crossed the limits of District Sheikhupura and entered the limits of District Lyallpur. The six accused were accompanying the carts. They were apprehended. They could not produce any permit or licence for the same. ASI Muhammad Ibrahim took in possession 37 bags from the possession of Muhammad Hussain vide memo Ex.PA; 43 bags vide memo Ex.PB from possession of Karamat Masih and 42 bags vide memo Ex.PC from the possession of Muhammad Yousaf accused. The remaining three accused were sitting on three carts. The accused were challaned.
In support of its case prosecution examined PW 1 Siraj Din who witnessed the recovery of Paddy and rice bags from the accused. He supported the prosecution case in toto. Hamid Khan PW 2 another recovery witness did nonsupport the prosecution case. S.I. Muhammad Yaqub PW 3 is a formal witness. A.S.I. Muhammad Ibrahim PW 4 recovered the paddy and arrested the accused at the place of occurrence and investigated the case. The accused denied the charge. They did not deny the recovery of paddy bags. It was pleaded by them that they were transporting the commodity within the District Sheikhupura. In support of this defence they examined Abdul Hameed DW 1, Barkat Ali DW 2, Muhammad Siddique DW- 3 and Munshi Inayat DW 4.
3. I have carefully gone through the evidence on record. The defence evidence is of no help to the accused because according to PW 1 Siraj Din and PW 4 Muhammad Ibrahim A.S.I. the accused were apprehended after they had entered the limits of District Lyallpur. This fact belies their defence version that they were transporting the paddy within District Sheikhupura. Admittedly they had no permit or licence to transport the paddy from District Sheikhupura to District Lyallpur. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the accused were not taking out the paddy from District Sheikhupura and that they were convicted by misreading of evidence. It was next contended that Hamid Khan PW 2 did not support the prosecution case which means that the case was a fabrication against the accused. No other point was urged in support of this petition. On perusal of the evidence I do not find any misreading by the two Courts below. The fact that Hamid Khan PW did not support the prosecution case would not mean that the other witnesses should also be disbelieved. This revision is directed against concurrent findings of two courts below. It is not possible to set aside the impugned judgment because there was no material irregularity or illegality effecting these decisions. I, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
K. B. A. /N1-333/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer