RAHIM DAD vs THE STATE
The petitioner Rahim Dad was convicted under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 after being found in a drunken state, with medical examination and chemical analysis confirming the presence of alcohol in his blood and urine. His appeal and subsequent revision petition before the Lahore High Court were dismissed. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the offence requires proof of the actual act of drinking rather than merely being found in a state of drunkenness. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, relying on its earlier view that the expression 'takes an intoxicant' defining 'drinking' in Article 6 of the Order is not restricted to an instant taking in the presence of witnesses, but also encompasses being found to have taken an intoxicant. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts warranted no interference and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether being found in a state of drunkenness constitutes an offence under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Does the definition of drinking under Article 6 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 require the actual act of drinking to be witnessed?
- Whether the words 'takes an intoxicant' include being found to have taken an intoxicant?
- Article 11, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 6, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
ORDER
' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-Petitioner Rahim Dad was found in a drunken state on 6-2-1983 at about 6 p. m. Near Tonga-stand, Fawara Chowk, Rawalpindi. He was taken by the police before a Medical Officer who after examining him certified that he had taken an intoxicant. A chemical analysis of the samples taken of his blood and urine also disclosed the presence of alcohol. He was accordingly tried under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hald) Order (IV of 1979), in the result of which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.
1. For one year. His appeal having failed, he filed a revision before the Lahore High Court but the same, too, was dismissed in limine.
2. On facts, we find that the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and as such there is no scope for interference with their finding. Learned counsel, however, argued that it was the actual act of drinking and not being found in a state of drunkenness which constituted the offence under the Order and that as such the petitioner who had not been seen in the act, of drinking could not be held guilty under Article 11. Such contention had been raised in The State v.
Abdul Majid (Criminal Appeal No, 50 of 1983) but had been repelled upon the view taken by this Court that the words "takes an intoxicant" used to define "drinking" in Article 6 of the Order cannot be restricted to an instant taking or taking in presence of witnesses but will also include being found to have taken an intoxicant.
3. No case is thus made out for grant of leave. The petition is dismissed.