1992 P Cr (PLP)
AZHAR IQBAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Rashid Aziz Khan, JJ |
| Parties | AZHAR IQBAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Rashid Aziz Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (AZHAR IQBAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), S.7‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Court‑‑‑Proceedings before Trial Court were stayed by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction when order of conviction was passed by the Trial Court‑‑‑Order of conviction and sentences being illegal and without jurisdiction same was set aside and case was remanded for retrial in accordance with law. Sardar Khurshid with Addl. A.‑G. and Irfan Qadir fur the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑‑ This Criminal Appeal No.435 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Gujranwala, whereby he on 8‑7‑1990 convicted Azhar Iqbal, appellant, under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to 5 years' R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed stengun P.1 and 10 bullets P.2/P1 to 10 on 14‑2‑1988. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Muhammad Azam, A.S.I., P.W.1, has prepared the formal F.I.R. Bashir Ahmad, S.I. P.W.2, and Rashid Mehmood, S.H.O. P.W.3, are the witnesses of the recovery of stengun P.1 and 10 live cartridges P.2/1‑10 from the appellant. They have supported the allegations against the appellant.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the recovery of the stengun and bullets from him. He has given evidence on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. in disproof of the charge against him. He produced two witnesses namely Rana Saleem Raza D.W.1 and Muhammad Naseem Butt D.W.2 in defence.
5. Believing the prosecution case and evidence produced by it and disbelieving the plea of false implication and the defence evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the order of the conviction of the appellant on 8‑7‑1990 was illegal, without authority and of no legal effect inasmuch as the High Court vide its order, dated 27‑2‑1990 passed in Writ Petition No.910 of 1990 had stayed proceedings before the trial Court and the order was in existence on 8‑7‑1990. Learned counsel for the State has not controverted him and rightly so.
7. We have considered the matter carefully. And examination of the file of Writ Petition No.910 of 1.990 reveals that this Court vide its order, dated 27‑2‑1990 had stayed proceedings against the appellant in the trial Court and that order was very much in existence on 8‑7‑1990, when the trial Court convicted the appellant vide impugned judgment, so there can be no two opinions, that the order of the conviction of the appellant was/is illegal and without jurisdiction. It rather amounts to the Contempt of Court.
8. Pursuant to the above discussion the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and the case is sent back to Court for fresh proceedings in accordance with law. The appellant was the trial on bail on the date of his conviction. So he shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
9. Before parting with the judgment, we would direct the Presiding officer concerned to explain the reason of his non‑compliance with the order, dated 27‑2‑1991 passed in Writ Petition No‑9 10 of 1990. He will submit hip explanation within a week. When the explanation is received, it will be placed before the Division Bench of this Court for further order. SA./A‑1419/L Case remanded.