1994 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.

Granted subject to all just exceptions.

2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the orders passed by Special Court No.l (S.TA.), Karachi in Special Case No.ll of 1994 whereby the application moved by the present applicant under section 4 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 read, with section 346, Cr.P.C. was rejected. Briefly the facts are that on 1-7-1992 at 06-00 hours an F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station New Town, Karachi (East) being Crime No.377/92 under section 13(e) of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance to the effect that the ammunition consisting of a magazine with 31 live bullets of S.M.G., 2 bullets of .30 bore pistol one packet of 50 bullets of use of .32 bore revolver, four chargers each containing with nine bullets of .2203 bore rifle etc. were recovered from the applicant in his house. It is alleged that the applicant had taken out the abovesaid ammunition from the Almirah and produced before the Investigating Agency. In consequence of the above F.I.R. and recovery, the applicant was sent up to stand trial, where the application was moved on the ground that the trial Court had no jurisdiction, as the offence did not fall under the ambit of scheduled offence. The application was rejected and being aggrieved, the present applicant has preferred this revision. We have heard the learned counsel for applicant. He has placed on record photostat copies of licence showing that he had licensed weapons and, therefore, the offence would not fall under the definition of scheduled offence. He has also placed on record a photostat copy of a certificate issued by Deputy Collector (Customs), Central Excise, Quetta on 20-3-1993 to the effect that on or before 29-6-1992 one Bashir Khan, Havaldar of Customs Department had lost his official magazine loaded with 30 rounds of Klashnikov while he was travelling in a Bus from Quetta to Hub. The applicant claims to be the owner of the said bus. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. The point which arises is whether the alleged offence is punishable under section 9 of the Arms Ordinance and, therefore, falls within the definition of scheduled offence. The second question which arises is whether the proceedings before the trial Court can be taken into consideration on the plea taken in defence. As regards the first point, reference may be made to clause (c) of the Schedule which reads as under:-- "(c) Any offence punishable under the Arms Act, 1878 (XI of-1878), or any offence punishable under any of the following sections for the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 (West Pakistan Ordinance NO.XX of 1965), namely, sections 8, 9 and 10, if committed in respect of a cannon, grenade, bomb or rocket; or a light or heavy automatic or semi-automatic weapon such as klashnikov, a G-III rifle or any other type of assault rifle." This provision shows that any offence committed in respect of section 9 of the A West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 is a scheduled offence. Section 9 of the I Arms Ordinance reads as under:-- "

9. Unlicensed possession of arms e.t.c.

No person shall have in his possession or under his control any arms, or any ammunition or military stores except under a licence and in the manner and to the extent permitted thereby." This section provides that even the possession of unlicensed ammunition would be an offence falling in the staid section. In this view of the matter, we are e inclined to hold that according to the F.I.R. a prima facie case has been made out against the applicant under section 9 of the Arms Ordinance and he is liable to be tried for the same. As regards the second point, it may be observed that under section 8 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act it has been provided C that initial burden is on the prosecution to link an accused with the commission of the alleged offence and once it has been shown prima facie, the burden would shift to the accused to prove that he is not so guilty. In the present case, as discussed above, there is a prima facie case against the applicant and it will be for him to appear before the trial Court and show that he has been falsely implicated if this is his case. With these observations we dismiss this criminal revision application summarily. N.H.Q./A-1486/9??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition dismissed.