Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHABBIR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Revision No,394 of 1984 Date of Judgment:1991-02-19 Reported As: 1991 MLD 1164 Result: Revision accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' Shabbir Hussain petitioner was tried under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, on the charge of keeping unlicensed revolver P.1 and bullets Ex.P.2/1-2. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. When the evidence of one witness was recorded, the petitioner desired to make a statement. So the Magistrate recorded his statement in which he admitted the recovery of revolver from him and prayed for forgiveness. On his admission that the revovler was recovered from him, the Magistrate convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to a fine of Rs,400, in default thereof six months' S.I. Feeling aggreived thereby, the State filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, who accepted the revision and enhanced the sentence from Rs,400 to imprisonment for a period of six months' R.I. He also maintained the sentence of a fine of Rs,400. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement of the accused should have been accepted as a whole; that the admission made by the accused/petitioner that the revolver and bullets were recovered from him does not constitute an offence punishable under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, therefore, he could not have been convicted unless it was proved or admitted by him that the fire-arms recovered from him were unlicensed and that the learned Sessions Judge has converted the amount of fine into imprisonment, which was not possible. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him. 3. I have considered the matter carefully. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the petitioner has not stated that he was not holding any licence for the fire-arms. He simply stated that the arms were recovered from him. Furthermore after his admission, he was not asked to show cause why he should not be convicted on account of the admission made by him,
---
## Page 2
therefore, he could not have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. This being the position, the question of enhancement of sentence by the learned Appellate Court did not arise. 4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside, and he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond.