MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Akram against his conviction under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act for the possession of illicit charas. The core legal question concerned whether the recovery of the contraband violated section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code due to the alleged status of the recovery witnesses as police stock witnesses and their residence outside the immediate locality. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, finding that the witnesses were residents of areas close to the place of recovery and that at least one witness was an independent zamindar not disqualified from testifying. The court established the principle that witnesses residing in areas close to the place of recovery who are not biased or proven to be stock witnesses satisfy the requirements for validating a search and recovery under the law.
- Does the testimony of recovery witnesses residing close to the place of recovery satisfy the requirements of search?
- Can witnesses who have assisted excise officials in the past be automatically categorized as police stock witnesses?
- Whether the provisions of search require witnesses to be strictly from the immediate locality of the recovery?
- Section 61, Punjab Excise Act 1914
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner has been convicted under section, 61 of the Punjab Excise Act for possession of 8 seers and 1 chattank of illicit charas of the value of Rs. 3,000. The recovery was effected by the Excise Officials in the presence of Mehraj Din, P. W. 2, Atta Muhammad, P. W. 3 and Fazal Elahi, P. W. 5, none of whom . Had any animus against the petitioner.
2. It was contended before the Courts below that Mehraj Din, Atta Muhammad and Fazal Elahi were police stock witnesses and since they did not belong to the locality where the recovery was effected (Lohari Bazar, Lahore) there was contravention of section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code. -It was found that all the three witnesses were residents of the areas close to Lohari Mandi where recovery was effected and that while Mehraj Din and Fazal Elahi had assisted the Excise Officials in the past, Atta Muhammad could not be described as a police stock witness. He is a Zamindar and lives in Sheikhupurian Bazar situated at a distance of about one mile from the place of recovery.
3. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Cited by 11 cases
- SARFARAZ KHAN KHILJI Versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA 2025 CLC 1836
- Mst. Maria Aziz vs Muhammad Nawaz 2021 YLR 2432, 2021 PHC 267
- Toba Saeed through her Father vs Chairman Admission Committee 2021 MLD 520
- Messrs Abaseen ORE through Azmat Khan vs Director General (Licensing 2021 PLJ Quetta 196, 2021 PLD Balochistan 9
- Syed Mujahid Raza etc vs MD. PEPCO and others 2020 CLC 1578, 2020 PHC 148
- FANOOS KHAN Versus ABDUL MUNAF 2021 CLC 47
- MANZOOR AHMED PARACHA Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED 2017 CLCN 192
- Syed SHAUKAT IQBAL vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 2004 SCMR 1315
- Syed SHAUKAT IQBAL Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 2004 PLC(CS) 1164
- Syed SHAUKAT IQBAL vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 2004 PLJ SC 739
- Muhammad Faraz vs Province of Punjab through District Collector Vehari 2025 LHC 2236