1999 PLP 3363 (MLD)
NASRULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3363 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NASRULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3363 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3363 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 3363 (MLD) (NASRULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Aftab Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, Asst. A. G. for Respondents.
- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General. Learned counsel for the petitioner a d that the petitioner is the owner and valid licence holder of 222 rifle and that he is entitled to its possession even though the same is the case property. Learned Assistant Advocate-General pointed out that the case property may not be produced during the trial which may not linger on. We are of the view that during these days when the law and order situation is worsening it is better that the rifle is retained by its owner and the licence-holder. The trial of the case shall take some time and the Constitutional right of the petitioner to retain the possession of the licensed rifle cannot be denied.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 516-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973); Art. 199--Constitutional petition
Petitioner was owner and valid licence holder of .222 rifle which was taken into possession by police as a case property
Accused person from whom rifle was recovered had already been released on bail
Petitioner had Constitutional right to retain possession of his licensed rifle which could not be denied to him
Petition was accepted and petitioner was allowed to take temporary custody of rifle in circumstances.
S. 516-A
Rifle was given to petitioner on Superdari by Court-- Order of temporary possession would become infructuous and Trial Court might get possession of rifle back from petitioner, if the same was not produced before Court during the trial.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 516-A
Rifle was given to petitioner on Superdari by Court-- Order of temporary possession would become infructuous and Trial Court might get possession of rifle back from petitioner, if the same was not produced before Court during the trial. Ch. Aftab Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, Asst. A. G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st October, 1997. About the recovery of 222 rifle from the alleged illegal custody of Muhammad Asif accused F.I.R. No. 379, dated 25-10-1996 stands registered under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 at Police Station Tatlayali, District Gujranwala. Claiming to be the owner and valid licence-holder of the rifle Nasrullah Khan writ petitioner made the application to obtain the same on temporary custody. According to the petitioner the accused of the case had been admitted to bail and that he was entitled to the temporary custody of the rifle. The application was resisted by the State which was dismissed on 11-12-1996 by the Judge Special Court, Gujranwala constituted under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 on the ground that the same is the case property. Hence this writ petition which has been resisted by the State.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General. Learned counsel for the petitioner a d that the petitioner is the owner and valid licence holder of 222 rifle and that he is entitled to its possession even though the same is the case property. Learned Assistant Advocate-General pointed out that the case property may not be produced during the trial which may not linger on. We are of the view that during these days when the law and order situation is worsening it is better that the rifle is retained by its owner and the licence-holder. The trial of the case shall take some time and the Constitutional right of the petitioner to retain the possession of the licensed rifle cannot be denied.
3. For what has been said above, we accept this writ petition, set-aside the impugned order dated l I-12-1996, accept the application filed by the petitioner and pass the order that the rifle shall be returned to the petitioner on temporary g custody subject to the furnishing of surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 (rupees twenty five thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala who shall also make a perusal of the original licence and retain a photostat of the same. In case the possession of the rifle is received by the petitioner and during the trial the same is not produced before the trial Court on any date, this order shall become infructuous and the trial Court may get back the possession of the rifle and the licence. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N.122/L/ Petition allowed.