NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner, Nazar Muhammad, for the possession of 599 bottles of foreign liquor, recovered from his vehicle and a godown upon his pointation. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Article 3 but maintained the conviction and sentence under Article 4. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the recovery of the contraband and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was credible and that the petitioner failed to substantiate his plea of enmity or provide evidence to rebut the recovery. Finding no infirmity in the reasoning of the Federal Shariat Court, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that appellate interference is unwarranted where the lower courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the recovery of contraband when the lower courts have believed the prosecution witnesses?
- Does the failure of an accused to prove enmity with recovery witnesses undermine the prosecution's case in a narcotics or prohibition offense?
- Is the testimony of recovery witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition arises from the facts that Nazar Muhammad petitioner was tried under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd.) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Order), on the charge of keeping 599 bottles of foreign origin liquor which were recovered from his possession on 3-2-1991. 48 bottles of the liquor were recovered from the car driven by him and 551 bottles of liquor were recovered from Godown on his pointation on the same day. Abdul Majeed P.W.1 and Ghaus Bakkah P.W.2 have supported the recovery of the liquor from the petitioner. The Forensic Science Laboratory's report reveals that the bottles contain alcohol. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner raised the plea of enmity and produced Naik Muhammad D.W.1 and Abdul Majid D.W.2 who stated that nothing was recovered from the car of the petitioner and that he was of good moral character.
2. The trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to--
(i) three years' R.I., a fine of Rs,15,000 or in default six months' R.I., and ten stripes, under Article 3 of the Prohibition Order; and
(ii) two years' R.I., a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default 3 months' R.I., and ten stripes, under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order.
' On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court acquitted him of the charge under Article 3 of the Prohibition Order but has maintained his conviction and sentence under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him. Hence this petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The conviction of the petitioner rests upon the statement of Abdul Majid (P.W.1) and Ghaus Bakhsh (P.W.2). The two Courts below have believed their statements. We do not see any infirmity in their statements warranting rejection thereof. The petitioner has failed to prove any enmity with the recovery witnesses. The statements made by the defence witnesses do not help him in any manner. No case for interference with the well-reasoned judgment of the Federal Shariat Court is made out.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI 1997 P Cr. L J 1659