2020 PLP 512 (MLD)
WALI MUHAMMAD and another — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 512 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Sukkur Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WALI MUHAMMAD and another — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 512 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 512 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Sukkur Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 512 (MLD) (WALI MUHAMMAD and another — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 4(b) & 7
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(1)(ff) & 6(2)(ee)
Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(1)(a) & 24
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342
Attempt to cause explosion or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, restriction on trial of offence, usage of explosives by any device including bomb blast or having any explosive substance without any lawful justification, possession of firearm and ammunition
Scope
Prosecution case was that the accused persons were found to be in possession of the explosive substances and firearms, for that they were booked and reported upon by the police
Prosecutor contended that no question with regard to the reports of ballistic/forensic expert were put to any of the accused during the course of their examination under S.342, Cr.P.C.; that such omission could not be overlooked, that record did not speak of availability of the sanction/consent of the Provincial Government which was necessary for such proceedings in terms of S.7 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and that case be remanded for re-writing of the judgment by the Trial Court
Impugned judgment was set aside with direction to the Trial Court to rewrite the judgment after curing the defects which were pointed out by the prosecution and by providing the chance of hearing to all the concerned
Appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.
The appellants by way of captioned Criminal Jail Appeals have impugned judgment dated 31.08.2018 passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court Ghotki at Mirpur Mathelo, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under; "Accused Shahnawaz and Wali Muhammad for committing offence under section 4(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, R.I. for 10 years. Accused Shahnawaz and Wali Muhammad for committing offence of having Explosive Substance, under section 7(1)(ff) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, R.I for 14 years. Accused Shahnawaz for committing offence under section 23(1)(a) Sindh Arms Act, 2013, imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and in case of non-payment of fine, he shall serve S.I. for 4 months more in prison. Accused Shahnawaz for committing offence under section 24 Sindh Arms Act, 2013, imprisonment for 05 years and also directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), in case of non-payment of fine, he shall serve S.I for 4 months more in prison."
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants were found to be in possession of the Explosive Substances and firearms, for that they were booked and reported upon by the police. At trial, the appellants did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution to prove it, examined complainant SIP Abdul Waheed Bhutto and his witnesses and then closed the side. The appellants during course of their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence, they did not examine any one in their defence or themselves on oath. On hearing of learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants by way of the judgment, which is impugned by the appellants before this Court through captioned appeals, those now are being disposed of by this Court through single judgment.
3. At the very outset, it is contended by learned DPG for the State that no question with regard to the reports of Ballistic/ Forensic Expert have been put to any of the appellants during course of his/their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C., such omission according to him could not be overlooked and the record did not speak of availability of the sanction/consent of the Provincial Government which is necessary for proceeding of the case like the present one in terms of Section 7 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. By contending so, he sought for remand of the matter for rewriting of the judgment by learned trial Court.
4. None has come forward on behalf of the appellants to rebut the contention raised by learned DPG for the State.
5. In view of above, the impugned judgment is set-aside with direction to learned trial Court to rewrite the same after curing the defects which are pointed out by learned DPG for the State preferably within one month time and off-course by providing chance of hearing to all the concerned, as is mandated by Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. Instant captioned appeals are disposed of in the above terms. SA/W-8/Sindh Case remanded.