Crl

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Appeal No. _____________/2001 Muhammad Aasim Muneer S/o Muneer Ahmad, caste Arain, R/o 100-P, Super Town, Defence, Lahore. ……APPELLANT VERSUS The State.

…..RESPONDENT

APPEAL U/s 7 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, against the judgment dated 23.01.2001 by which the learned Special Judge S.T.A. Courts Multan Division, Multan, convicted the Appellant.

Sentence:U/S 412 P.P.C .………………………… …8 years R. I . Fine…………………… …………………………………One lac in defau l t of payment of f ine have to further go…………………………… …………2 years R.I. Case: F.I.R. No. ………..28/98 Dated: …………...13.01.1998 Under sections: ….395/411 P.P.C. P.S………………. Saddar, Mian Channu.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the above said case was registered against five unknown persons for snatching of money and vehicle. However, the complexion of accused persons was detailed in the F.I.R. The appellant was arrested in this case on 6.2.1998. Challan against the appellant and others was submitted in the court, while the charge was framed on 4.1.2000. 3. That in the course of evidence, all the private witnesses refused to acknowledge the appellant and others as accused persons, however, a Rapat No. 16 under section 550 Cr.P.C. was exhibited as Ex.P.E. and two police witnesses were examined on which the learned trial judge pronounced the judgment and convicted the appellant and acquitted the co-accused. Copy of judgment is Annex “A”. 4. That the judgment dated 23.7.2001 is liable to be set aside inter alia on the following: GROUNDS a)

That the appellant was not nominated in the F.I.R.

b)

That no identification parade was held during the course of investigation, which was necessary in like cases, but non-performance of this identification parade is quite fatal to the case of prosecution.

c)

That there was no evidence under section 395 P.P.C. against the appellant.

d)

That Ex.P.E. (recovery memo) under section 550 Cr.P.C. was not a part and parcel of challan submitted in

the court. This fact of recovery of vehicle No. 8600 OKA under section 550 Cr.P.C. was even not narrated/mentioned in the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Even the names of recovery witnesses (P.W.9 and 10) were not cited in the calendar of witnesses. No permission for the production of both the witnesses was obtained. No conviction can be based and sustained on the basis of this maneuvered evidence. e)

That there was no order of Superdari or Superdgy Nama on the file, which was the only be possible corroboration of Ex.P.E.

f)

That no vehicle was produced before the court during the course of evidence. The learned Trial Court has taken the notice of this fact in the judgment which favours the accused and a good ground for acquittal of the appellant.

g)

That it is a case of misreading and non-reading of evidence by the learned trial court.

h)

That learned trial court failed to place the prosecution evidence and statement of appellant under section 342 Cr.P.C. in a juxt-a-position.

i)

That the learned trial court did not examined the defence plea, judicially, taken by the appellant.

j)

That the manner in which “Ex.P.E.” placed on the record, the factum of recording the P.W.9 and P.W.10 is quite illegal and unlawful, even the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 is not believable.

k)

That the impugned judgment has a great miscarriage of justice to the appellant. Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, it is respectfully prayed that the judgment dated 23.7.2001 may pleased be set aside and the appellant may graciously be acquitted. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in favour of the appellant to meet the ends of justice. Humble Appellant,

Dated: ___________

Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first Appeal on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Appeal No. _____________/2001 Muhammad Aasim Muneer

Vs.

The State

INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES 1

Opening Sheet.

2

Memo of Appeal

3

Copy of Judgment.

4

Vakalatnama

PAGES

A

APPELLANT Dated: ____________

Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176