1992 PLP 2470 (MLD)

Prosecution case is that on 12‑6‑1990 at 6 p.m. A.S.I. Muhammad Urs of Police Post Khai Road alongwith P.C. Gul Bahar, P.C. Anwar Baig and Laince‑Naik Luqman was sitting in the above‑said Police Post. At about 6 p.m. they found one man, who seeing the police party, was trying to run away. A.S.I. suspected him and went after him. He was caught with the help of his staff. He disclosed his name Irfan Cheepa of Shahi Bazar. From his personal search, A.S.I. recovered one .30 bore pistol and one magazine from the folds of his Shalwar. He could not show the licence of the said arm. After completing the investigation the appellant was challaned in the Court and was convicted as stated above. We have heard Mr. Aziz Rehman, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Lateef Ansari, A.A.‑G. for the State. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence under section 13‑D of the Arms Ordinance is punishable under section 8 thereof. The said offence will be triable by the Special Court, only. if it is a scheduled offence. He also submitted that the offence would fall in the schedule only if it is committed in respect of a cannon, grenade, bomb, rocket or a light or heavy automatic or semi‑automatic weapon such as Klashnikov, G‑III rifle or any other type of assault rifle. It was contended that .30 bore pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant does not come within the, above definition. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Muhammad Raza Irani alias Muhammad Irani v. Government of Pakistan 1991 P Cr. L J

583. In the aforesaid case the amendments in the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and the Schedule of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 were thoroughly considered by a Division Bench of this Court and it was held: "Thus, it is evident that in ‑its mechanism and performance i.e. in its calibre weight, length, muzzle, magazine, velocity, effective range and handling a pistol whether it is .30 bore or not is different and distinguishable from Klashnikov, G‑III rifle or any other type assault rifle all of which belong to a sophisticated class of rifles. By their high degree of efficiency, accuracy and precision, sheer volume of fire, the user secures first round hit and target every time. Without deviating from the Golden Rule of Interpretation whereunder among others the ordinary meaning of words `such as' stand for `similar', `like' or `one of such kinds', I am inclined to hold that these words restrict the general expression, namely, `light or heavy, automatic or semi‑automatic' to the class of weapons specifically stated namely, `Klashnikov and G‑III rifle or generally mentioned i.e. `any other type of assault rifle' to the exclusion of other weapons. In other words the general expression will give way to the specific expression following it which in turn qualifies and redefines the former." The aforesaid decision was followed m the case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State P L D 1991 Kar. 266 by another Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, J.), was the member. It was observed:‑‑ "We are of the clear view that the pistol recovered from the possession of the appellant was not such as would bring the offence with which he was charged within the 'mischief of scheduled offences and therefore, Special Court of Terrorist Activities had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case." The above case was also followed in Syed Rashid Ahmad v. The State 1992 P Cr. L J

676. The above amendments also came up for consideration in Bakhtiar Ahmad v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 2398 before a Division Bench of Lahore High Court and it was held:‑ "the offences under the Arms Ordinance in respect of rifle of .303 bore or over musket of 410 bore or over pistol nr revolver of 441 or over, or ammunition which can be fired from such rifle musket pistol or revolver are not scheduled offences under the Act (of 1975) " In the present case also the appellant was allegedly in possession of .30 bore pistol and, therefore, the said offence was not triable by the Special Court constituted under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV) 1975. Consequently the impugned judgment is hereby set aside being without jurisdiction and it is directed that the case be retried by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The case be forwarded to District Magistrate, Hyderabad for compliance. The appellant was granted bail by this Court by order dated 15‑1‑1991 subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and executing P.R. Bond in the like sum. He shall continue to be on bail till conclusion of the trial. N.H.Q./M‑1698/K Retrial ordered.