2013 PLP 698 (SCMR)
HAKIM KHAN — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2013 PLP 698 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasir-ul-Mulk, Tariq Parvez and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | HAKIM KHAN — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 698 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 698 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Tariq Parvez and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 698 (SCMR) (HAKIM KHAN — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 11-12-2008 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No.433-T of 2005).
S. 13
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103
Unlicensed possession of arms etc.
Scope
Non-association of private witnesses during recovery
Scope
Accused was allegedly arrested in an injured condition during a police encounter and arms and ammunition were recovered from him
Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965
Appeal filed by accused before the High Court was also dismissed
Contentions of accused were that serious prejudice was caused to his defence as he was not represented by any counsel before the High Court; that he was implicated in the present case since he wanted to lodge a criminal case against police officials for killing one of his friends in a fake police encounter
Police officials had given direct testimony about the arrest of accused in an injured condition with unlicensed weapon
Although witnesses were police officials but keeping in view the fact that there was cross-firing between the police and accused, who refused to surrender, there was no question of any person from the public being available for the purpose of witnessing the recovery
Accused was defended by a counsel before the Trial Court, where prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination
Accused opted not to engage a counsel before the High Court, however his present appeal was heard with the assistance of a senior defence counsel appearing on his behalf, thus no prejudice was caused to the accused
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Ch. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, APG for the State.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ PARVEZ, J.
The appellant Hakim Khan, besides being charged in two other F.I.Rs., was charged in case F.I.R. No.40 of 2004 dated 13-6-2004 registered under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance. According to the prosecution case, during an encounter a proclaimed offender Ali Noor was killed, whereas during the said police encounter the accused/appellant-Hakim Ali was injured and besides other arms/anmunitions, one Kalashnikov having 170 live rounds, 7-loaded magazine and patta magazine were recovered. The appellant in injured condition was shifted to hospital, where he after his recovery disclosed that he has no licence of the recovered weapon/ammunition.
2. Accordingly the case was registered and the accused-appellant was sent up to face trial under the said charge. The prosecution produced Khalil Ahmad ASI as P.W.1, Muhammad Idrees ASI as P.W.2 and Nazir Ahmad Inspector/SHO as P.W.3 to prove the charge against the appellant. It also exhibited documentary evidence Exb.PA to Exb.PC; where after the accused-appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations and claimed the prosecution case to be concocted in order to prevent him from registration of case against police for extra judicial killing of Ali Noor deceased.
3. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 30-9-2004 convicted the appellant under section 13/20/65 of the A.O., 1965 and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000 and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo six months' R.I. with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. extended.
4. Feeling aggrieved from the conviction/sentence, the accused-appellant preferred Cr.A. 433-J of 2005, which has been dismissed by means of the impugned judgment and his conviction/sentence recorded by the trial Court has been maintained.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that pointation of un-licensed/without permit Kalashnikov on the person of the appellant is fabricated in order to strengthen the case against the appellant where he has been made accused in case F.I.R. No.39 wherein the appellant has sustained firearms injury but to militate the illegal act on the part of the police present case has been registered against him. His plea before the learned trial Court was that as his friend namely Ali Noor @ Allah Noor was illegally arrested and latter killed in fake encounter over which the appellant had threatened the police for registration of a criminal case against them, the present fabricated case is made against the appellant.
6. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General for the State however, has argued that no previous enmity between the appellant and the police party who have arrested the appellant and who have recovered unlicensed weapon from him, has been brought on record.
7. We have gone through the record including the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as the defence version given by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.
8. Khalil Ahmed, ASI (P.W.1) and Nazir Ahmed, Inspector (P.W.3) have given direct testimony about the arrest of the appellant in injured condition with unlicensed weapon for which charge was framed against him under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. No doubt both are official witnesses but keeping in view the fact that there was cross firing between the police and the appellant where he refused to surrender to the lawful command, there is no question of any person from public being available for the purpose of witnessing the recovery.
9. Learned counsel fort the appellant has also argued that grave miscarriage of justice has been caused to the appellant because he was not represented by a counsel before the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court where his appeal was being heard. Perusal of the record would show that the appellant was defended by learned counsel who had subjected the prosecution witnesses to sufficient long cross-examination and he opted not to engage counsel before the Lahore High Court. However, his case has been heard by us with the able assistance of learned and senior defence counsel appearing on his behalf. Thus no prejudice has been caused to him. In this view of the matter, we find that there is no force in this appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed. MWA/H-2/SC Appeal dismissed.