IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MULTAN.

Crl. Appeal No. ___________/2002

Muhammad Asif S/o Karam Din, caste Kamboh, R/o Mauza Lar,
Tehsil & District Multan.
……Appellant
VERSUS
The State. …....Respondent

APPEAL U/s 408 Cr.P.C. against

the judgment dated 3.1.2002 passed
by Mr. Pervaiz Iqbal Sipra, the
learned Judicial Magistrate Sec-30
by which the appellant was
sentenced U/s 13-200/65 A.O.

Sentence: -
One year: R.I.
Fine: Rs. 3,000/-
In default of payment of fine, to undergo one month R.I.
Case: -
F.I.R. No. 2700/2001 Dated: 22.10.2001
U/s: 7-21/91 SIAA P.S. Alpa, Multan.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the F.I.R. was lodged by the Saeed Ahmad S.I. (P.W.3)
that on the day of occurrence, he was present on the Kacha
road leading towards Basti Emay Wala in connection with
patrolling and checking; a person, after looking at the police
party returned suspiciously. Such conduct of said person
motivated the police to apprehend him. On the personal search
a pistol 30 bore along-with a magazine was recovered, when
the magazine was detached a bullet was also found in it.
 During the investigation, the pistol and the bullet were taken
into possession vide memo (E.X. PB), the said person stated
his name and particulars, on which the complainant (Ex.P.1)
was drafted by the Saeed Ahmad S.I. under section 7/21/91
SIAA, because the accused could not produce any licence or
permit for retaining the arm recovered. This complaint was
sent to police station for the registration of formal F.I.R.

2. That the challan of this case was submitted in the court on

25.10.20001. The learned trial court could not find any
material/evidence on the file to charge the accused with the
offence alleged in the F.I.R. However, a formal charge U/s
13/20/65 A.O. was framed against the accused/appellant on
13.11.2001.

3. That during the trial prosecution produced four witnesses in

defence of the accused/appellant produced two witnesses. In
the statement of accused U/s 342 Cr.P.C., he disclosed the
reasons for registration of case. He stated that he was going to
his village along-with both the D.W.’s, when intercepted by
the police party. The appellant protested upon this restraint on
which all the three persons were detained at the spot. After
some time, both the D.W.’s and appellant were searched.
From the D.W.’s some money was recovered but nothing was
recovered from the appellant, so the appellant was taken by
the police at police station and falsely implicated in this case.

4. That after the arguments of both the parties the learned trial
court convicted the appellant vide the impugned judgment
dated 3.1.2002, which is Annex “A”.

5. That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside interalia

on the following: -

GROUNDS

i) That the impugned judgment is against the natural

justice and law of equity.
ii) That the impugned judgment is against the law and
justice.

iii) That the impugned judgment is against the prevailing

law and facts of the case.

iv) That the learned trial court could not apply judicial
mind upon the evidence produced by the parties.

v) That the F.I.R. was not brought on the judicial file/on

the record legally.

vi) That there are material differences/discrepancies in the

prosecution evidence and the learned trial court could
not take the judicial notice on this matter.

vii) That the evidence produced by the defence remains

unrebutted during the cross-examination. As a rule of
law, the same shall be treated as correct. In these
circumstances, it was a case of acquittal.

viii) That if the prosecution evidence and defence evidence

along-with the statement of accused put in juxt-a-
position the plea of accused/appellant is more probable,
but the learned trial court could not examine this fact
properly.

ix) That it is a case of mis-reading and non-reading of

evidence, even the judgment is pronounced in haste.

x) That the impugned judgment has caused a great

miscarriage of justice.

Keeping in view the above-mentioned

facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that
the impugned judgment may please be set aside
and the appellant may please be acquitted from
the charge.
 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit, may please be granted to the appellant
in the interest of justice.

Humble Appellant,
Dated: ___________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176
 IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MULTAN.

Crl. Appeal No. ___________/2002

Muhammad Asif Vs. The State

Application U/s 426 Cr.P.C. for the suspension of sentence.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the above captioned appeal has been filed before this
Hon’ble Court and the contents of appeal may please be treated
as part & parcel of this application.

2. That the impugned judgment is against the natural justice and

law of equity.

3. That the impugned judgment is against the law and justice.

4. That the impugned judgment is against the prevailing law and

facts of the case.

5. That the learned trial court could not apply judicial mind upon
the evidence produced by the parties.

6. That the offence under section 13/20/65 A.O. is a bailable one.

The applicant is sentenced to one year, which is a short sentence.
The applicant is behind the bars since the arrest (22.10.2001).

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the

application in hand may please be accepted and the
sentence of the appellant/convict may please be
suspended till the final decision of the appeal.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems
fit, may please be granted in the interest of justice.
Humble Applicant
Dated: __________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.