Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NASIR MAHMOOD VS Respondent: STATE
1994 M L D 1303
1994 M L D 1303
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J
NASIR MAHMOOD---Petitioner
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3490/B of 1993, decided on 4th October, 1993.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----
----S. 497(2)---Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance (XX of 1991), Ss.7 & 1(3)---Bail, grant of---No notification having been issued by the Punjab Government under S.1(3), Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991 for the enforcement of the said ordinance, the same was a dormant piece of legislation---Registration of the case against the accused under the said Ordinance, therefore, was open to serious legal objection and case against him was one of further inquiry-- Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.
1992 M L D 1618 ref.
M. Iqbal Cheema for Petitioner.
Nazar Hussain Taskeen for the State.
Date of hearing: 4th October, 1993.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 7-C of Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance XX of 1991, arising out of F.I.R. No.171/92, dated 7-11-1992, registered at Police Station "B" Division, Gujrat, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.Rs. is that he while in custody in connection with another case registered against him disclosed that he can get recovered a pistol .30 bore from a room of his house and on his pointation illicit pistol was recovered from him for which the aforesaid case was registered against the petitioner .
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance XX is a dormant piece of legislation as is evident from subsection (3) of section 1 of the Act because its enforcement is dependent on the issuance of Notification by the Provincial Government, Elaborating his argument, he further submitted that there is no Notification on the record by the Punjab Government enforcing the provision of the aforesaid Act, hence the very registration of the case against the petitioner is open to serious legal objection and the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he is entitled to the grant of bail. He placed reliance. on 1992 M L D 1618.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer, failed to controvert the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to above.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find great force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as in the absence of the Notification under subsection (3) of section 1 of the Act by the Punjab Government, the, registration of the case against the petitioner under the aforesaid Act is open to serious legal objection, hence the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry so the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate.
N.H.Q./N-231/L Bail allowed.