1992 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑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, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Din for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑B [as amended by Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance (XVI of 1988]‑‑‑Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), Schedule [as amended by Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) (Amendment) Ordinance (XVII of 1988)]‑‑‑Keeping licensed stengun‑‑ Jurisdiction of Special Court‑‑‑Accused was convicted y Special Court on charge of keeping unlicensed stengun‑‑‑Ordinance (XVII of 1988) by which amendment in relevant' Schedule to Act, 1975 was made, according, to which offence of keeping stengun was triable by Special Court, admittedly had expired much before date of alleged recovery from accused‑‑‑On date of alleged recovery, no proceeding under Arms Ordinance on charge of keeping unlicensed stengun was pending m Special Court against accused‑‑‑Conviction of accused by Special Court on charge of keeping stengun was illegal in circumstances ‑‑‑Challan against accused, however, could be filed before Court of competent jurisdiction for trial. Rana Arif, AA.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Arif, AA.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 31st July, 1991. This Criminal Appeal No.356 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Curt (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Sargodha, whereby he, on 29‑5‑1990 convicted Muhammad Khan, appellant, under section 13‑B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000 or in default thereof one year s R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed stengun P.1 and 9 live cartridges P.2/1‑9 on 25‑2‑1990. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution produced four witnesses. Issab Khan, P.W.4, had drafted the formal F.I.R. Abdur Razzaq, S.I. P.W.1, and Muhammad Anwar P W.2, are the recovery witnesses. Abdur Razzaq, P.W.1, stated that on 25‑2‑1990 he arrested the appellant and on his personal search stengun P.1 and 9 live cartridges P.2/1‑9 were recovered for which he had no licence. Muhammad Anwar, P.W.2 supported him. Khair Muhammad P.W:3 stated that on 9‑4‑19)0, he examined stengun P.1 and was of the opinion that the same could fire automatic burst as well as single shot.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of stengun and cartridges from him.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Muhammad Aslam alias Sooba v. State 1990 P Cr. L J 704 to contend that the trial of the appellant by the Special Court on the charge of keeping unlicensed stengun on 25‑2‑1990 was illegal. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the "Muhammad Aslam's case" carefully. We do not see any reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Division Bench of this Court in "Muhammad Aslam's case". Admittedly the Ordinance by which amendment in the relevant schedule to the relevant Act of 1975 was made had expired much before the date recovery, and on 25-2-1990 no proceedings under the Arms Ordinance on the charge of keeping unlicensed stengun was pending in Special Court. This being the position, we feel that the conviction of the appellant by the trial Court on the charge of keeping stengun on 25-2-1990, was illegal.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and the conviction_and sentence of the appellant is set aside. The trial Court will return, 8 the challan to the S.H.O./Officer who had presented it in the Court, for filing before the Court of competent of jurisdiction. The appellant is on bail. He will remain on bail during his trial by a Court of competent jurisdiction. H.B.T./M‑70/L Appeal accepted.