P L D 1996 Lahore 194 (PLP)
ABDUR RAZZAQ ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1996 Lahore 194 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan |
| Parties | ABDUR RAZZAQ ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1996 Lahore 194 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1996 Lahore 194 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1996 Lahore 194 (PLP) (ABDUR RAZZAQ ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Qasim Khan Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ S. 4 ‑‑‑ Mens rea ‑‑‑ Essentials ‑‑‑ Malice and intention are sine qua non for bringing the case within the mischief of SA of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. (b) Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ S. 5 ‑‑‑ Knowledge ‑‑‑ Essentials ‑‑‑ Offender must have knowledge about the explosive substance in his possession to constitute the offence. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ S.497(2) ‑‑‑ Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), SsA & 5 ‑‑‑ West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13‑B ‑‑‑ Bail, grant of ‑‑‑ Accused himself being a victim of the explosion could not be saddled with the mens rea or the knowledge which were the necessary ~ ingredients of SsA & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 respectively ‑‑‑ Section 13‑B. of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, prima facie, was also not applicable to the facts of the case7‑ Reasonable grounds in the circumstances did not exist to believe that the accused was guilty of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497(l), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Case against accused required further inquiry and he was allowed bail accordingly. Sh. Muhammad Rahim for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ASIF JAN, J.‑‑Abdur Razzaq, petitioner was arrested on the 31st of January, 1995 in pursuance of a case registered vide first information report No.523 dated the 30th of November, 1994, under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act of 1908 read with section 13‑B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965,, at Police Station Burj Wala, District Sahiwal, regarding an occurrence which took place on the 30th of November, 1994 at about 8‑30 a.m. in the area of Chak No.52/5‑L, which is about 22 kilometres from Police Station Burj Wala, District SahiWal.
2. The petitioner was trying to sell unwittingly what was in reality a bomb at a shop of a local old hardware dealer. It seems that both the seller and the buyer were totally ignorant about what they were dealing with. The mere fact that all of them were trying to break open the explosive substance in question with a crude use of a hammer, is clearly indicative of the fact that they were not aware of the consequences that would ensue. As a result of the explosion two innocent people died while the petitioner himself received as many as 14 injuries. 1
3. A bare reading of section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act of 1908 shows that in order to fall within the mischief of the said ‑section malice and intention are sine qua non. There has to be mens rea in order provision of section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act o 1908.: Similarly section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act of 1908 proceeds on the premises that the offender has knowledge about‑the explosive substance in his possession. Section 13‑B of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 11965, prima facie, does not seem to be attracted to the peculiar facts of this particular case.
4. The petitioner himself was a victim of the explosion and therefore, cannot be saddled with knowledge or mens rea.
5. Reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has been guilty of an 10 offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for I E years do not seem to exist..However, the case against the petitioner may be a case of further enquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of sectiod 497, Cr.P.6. which entitles the petitioner to the grant of bail.
6. Resultantly, the petitioner is granted bail provided he furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one ‑surety in the like amount to F the satisfaction of the Assistant ommissioner/Duty Magistrate of Sahiwal. N.H.Q./A‑929/L Bail granted