1969 P Cr (PLP)

State v. Farman Shah P L D 1967 Pesh. 229 ref. A. Karim Lakhan for the State. Date of hearing : 26th February 1968. The respondent Mohd. Siddique son of Mir Mohd. is now before me having been arrested in consequence of a warrant issued on the 21st February 1968 and in furtherance of a reference made by the D. M., Dadu recommending that this respondent's conviction under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance and sentence till the rising of the Court with a fine of Rs. 200 in default further R. 1. for two months awarded by We learned Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M. Mehar on 27‑5‑67 be enhanced as being indequate in the context of the provisions of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance.

2. The case against this respondent was that on the 25‑1‑67 he was apprehended by a police party consisting of head constables and constables at about 2‑30 a.m. in suspicious circumstances on the bridge of the Kakole Minor and after interrogation and arrest a country‑made pistol and two live cartridges were lying concealed in the folds of his trouser and the shirt pocket of this respondent who did not have any licence for being in possession of these fire‑arms. After necessary sanction had been obtained the respondent was prosecuted and convicted. His defence in his 342 statement was that he was taken away from his house by H. C. Mohd. Ibrahim and detained in the Police Lock‑up for two or three days after which the pistol and the two live cartridges were foisted on him after examination of two defence witnesses this was found to be false. In consequence he was convicted as earlier stated.

3. On being questioned in Court the respondent repeats his stand that he has been falsely implicated and further pleads that as he has failed to give a kid to the Head Constable he has been falsely involved.

4. It appears to me that this recommendation by the D. M., Dadu will have to be accepted specially as the learned counsel for the State has drawn my attention to the Proviso to section 13 of the Act making it incumbent upon the Court concerned on recording finding of conviction for being in possession of unlicensed firearms for the punishment to be for a period not less than a year. Reference has also been made to State v. Farman Shah (P L D 1967 Pesh.299) with the observations therein that it is manifest from the language of the proviso read with the explanation that in cases where accused persons are found in possession of unlicensed arms the trial Magistrate is left with no option whatever except of recording a sentence of imprisonment for not less than a year. The respondent was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. It is further manifest that this sentence is not only inadequate but also illegal in the circumstances and that it should be enhanced. I, therefore, allow the reference and enhance the sentence of imprisonment in consequence of conviction of the respondent under section 13 (d) of the Act to one of 12 months' R. I. The respondent has been in jail from 27th May 1967 for two months in consequence of his default in the payment of fine. This period may be counted towards his period of 12 months' R. I. Order accordingly. Reference accepted.