WASEEM LAW ASSOCIATES:
[1993] Munawar Hussain v. State
(Ajmal Mian, J)
(v) C.W. Sheikh Fayyazi, the incharge of Flashmans Hotel, had deposed that the absconding accused Abdullah Jan stayed in their hotel from 1-11-1983 to 7-11-1983. The appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt of Habib Bank Limited told him that Abdullah Jan and his friend were the guests of the bank and they should be allowed discount. The bill produced also indicates that factually discount was given and Habib Bank's name was mentioned.
(vi) There are also spools indicating that the present appellant had conversation with Nawaz at Oslo. Their voices were identified by P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi. Their conversation was taped and recorded by above P.W.22.
20. The learned counsel for the appellants have also urged that since above P.Ws.10, 11 and 25 were related to P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi, they being interested witnesses, cannot furnish the required corroboration. In this regard, we may observe that simpliciter the factum of relationship inter se between witnesses or between a complainant and witnesses does not make witnesses interested witnesses. An interested witness is a person who has some personal motive to implicate an accused person falsely. In the present case the above witnesses cannot be treated as interested witnesses simpliciter for the reason that they were related to P.W.24, who was not even charged for the offence in Pakistan. They had no motive to implicate the appellants falsely. They seem to be natural witnesses to the facts what they have stated.
We may observe that the Courts cannot expect in cases of smuggling of narcotics, the evidence of the nature, which is generally available in an ordinary criminal case, as the persons who indulge in the above nefarious activities are more organized, affluent and influential and, therefore, generally, they manage to cause dents in the prosecution evidence. In such like cases, which are not only damaging the image of Pakistani nation in the comity of nations, but are making our young generation addicts to narcotic, the Courts' approach should be dynamic and they should overlook technicalitics in the larger interest of the country and the public-at-large. The Court is to consider the entire material on record as a whole and if it is convinced that the case is proved, conviction should be recorded.
In our view, the cases of the above three appellants are interlinked, they have arisen out of one transaction and, therefore, the entire evidence on record in respect of the above three appellants is to be evaluated and considered together.
21. The two Courts below have considered the entire evidence on record and have concluded that the prosecution succeeded in providing the case of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We have also examined the entire evidence on record and we are also of the view that the same is sufficient to sustain the above convictions and sentences against the appellants. The appcals are, therefore, dismissed.
Μ.Β.Α./Μ-1729/S Appeals dismissed
------
1993 S C M R 798
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J.,
Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Muhammad Afzal Lone, JJ
Maj. (Retd.) MUHAMMAD MATLUB KHAN---Appellant
versus
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through
Secretaries, Establishment and
Defence Divisions, Islamabad
and 2 others---Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 258 and 259 of 1991, decided on 22nd December, 1992.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 16-6-1991 of the Federal Service Tribunal, passed in Appeal No.143(R) of 1990)
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---
----Ss.8, 2(b) & 23---Seniority---"Civil servant"---Definition---Person on deputation and employed on contract was excluded from the purview of definition of "civil servant"---Appellant joined the Intelligence Bureau on 1-7-1978 on deputation from the Ministry of Defence initially for a period of two years and deputation period was extended from time to time until he retired from the Army Service on 15-2-1983 and was absorbed as Assistant Director with effect from the date of his retirement---Rules framed under the authority of Civil Servants Act, 1973 provided that a deputationist with three years approved service, could permanently be absorbed, but there was no provision for regular induction of a person serving on contract and that too, by adversely affecting the rights of the other civil servants---Induction Policy also expressly ordained that the re-employed officer on contract will not have any seniority and will not be placed on the regular gradation list---Held, appellant could claim seniority from the date of his regular induction in the Intelligence Bureau i.c. w.c.f. 15-2-1983 and the respondent who had joined the said Bureau on 25-10-1974 through Public Service Commission and was promoted as Assistant Director w.e.f. 15-4-1982 was thus senior to the appellant. [p. 804] A.
0 Comments