Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ARIF VS Respondent: THE STATE
1992 P Cr
1992 P Cr. L J 507
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan and
Muhammad Amir Malik, JJ
MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Appellant
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 659,of 1990, heard on 5th May, 1991
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), S.4‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Special Court‑‑‑Offence was not a scheduled offence on 17‑9‑1988 when recovery of .30 bore gun was allegedly effected from accused‑‑‑Whether recovered gun was automatic weapon or not, was doubtful‑‑‑Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances.
Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Appellant.
Haider Ali Shah for the State.
Date of hearing: 5th May, 1991
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑‑ This Criminal Appeal No.659 of 1990 arises from the judgment of learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, whereby he on 29‑9‑1990 convicted Muhammad Arif, appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof further R.I. for one year.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on 1989 M L D 4013 and 1990 P Cr. L J 1796, to contend that the .30 bore gun allegedly recovered from the appellant was not an automatic weapon within the meaning of the schedule to the relevant law, therefore, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities/Trial Court) had no jurisdiction to try and convict the appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. Furthermore, offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 was not a schedule offence on 17‑9 1988 i.e. at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
3. We have considered the arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties with care. We feel persuaded to accept this appeal for the reason that offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, was not a schedule offence on 17‑9‑1988. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the gun P.1 recovered from the appellant was an automatic weapon for the purpose of conviction under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 by the trial Court.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He shall be released if not required in any other case. However the State may file the challan of the case before the Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired. Disposed of accordingly.
S.A./M‑3041/L Appeal accepted.