Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: STATEHonorable Justice ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH
1988 S C M R 1824
1988 S C M R 1824
Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A.Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
ABDUL MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.2‑Q of 1988, decided or. 25th May, 1988.
(On appeal from judgment of Baluchistan High Court dated 26‑3‑1988 in Criminal Appeal 1 of 1988).
Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑S.5‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Contended that hand‑grenade recovered from accused was sent for examination to Expert on Explosives very late and delay was not explained by prosecution and that this unexplained delay as well as absence of any evidence as to its custody in the meanwhile, entitled accused to benefit of doubt‑‑This submission, amongst other points raised in support of petition, deserved examination‑‑Leave to appeal granted.
Ghazi and others v. The State 1982 S C M R 49 and Muhammad Yasin v. The State 1984 S C M R 866 ref.
Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Yaqub E.Eusufzai, Advocate‑General for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th May, 1988.
ORDER
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Baluchistan High Court dated 26‑3‑1988, by which an appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed in that while his convictions and sentences under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, recorded against him by the Special Court of Baluchistan were set aside, the one under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, was upheld but the sentence imposed on him was reduced from 14 years'‑R.I. to seven years' R.I.
According to prosecution one hand‑grenade, one pistol, 20 grams of charas and six live cartridges were recovered from his possession on trap organized by Naib‑Tehsildar on 3‑5‑1986, at about 10.30 a.m. The hand‑grenade was sent to the Expert on Explosives for examination as late as 30‑9‑1987, and he certified it as a live, workable explosive material. It was on the basis of the long unexplained delay in forwarding hand‑grenade to the Expert and also the absence of any evidence as to its custody in the meanwhile that learned counsel for the petitioner raised the plea that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In support of this submission learned counsel relies on the rule laid down by this Court in Ghazi and others v. The State 1982 S C M R 49 arid Muhammad Yasin v. The State 1984 SCMR 866.
This submission amongst other points raised in support of the petition deserves examination. We, therefore grant leave to appeal and allow the petition.
Leave to appeal granted M.Y.H./A‑296/5