2000 P Cr (PLP)
JAVAID KHALID — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ SARWAR, S.MO., POLICE STATION DINGA, DISTRICT GUJRAT and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAVAID KHALID — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ SARWAR, S.MO., POLICE STATION DINGA, DISTRICT GUJRAT and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (JAVAID KHALID — Petitioner Versus IMTIAZ SARWAR, S.MO., POLICE STATION DINGA, DISTRICT GUJRAT and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rashid Bhatty for Petitioner.
- 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate General. I have gone through the file. There is no need to disagree with the learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed before me that without the recovery of the illicit arms the case under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 could not be registered. I would simply express that it is an over-doing on the part of the Police Officer. The learned A.A.-G. did not contest the aforesaid legal proposition. Legally the law can be set in motion after an offence is committed and then the matter is reported to the Police i.e. First Information Report is registered which is lacking in the instant matter. In this view of the matter, it can safely be held that there was no legal or factual justification for the registration of the case required and desired to be quashed through the filing of this petition.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-B13-- Quashing of F.I.R.
Police registered the case against accused without recovery of alleged illicit arms
Such was over-doing on the part of police as law could be set in motion after an offence was committed, matter would be reported and F.I.R. registered
No justification was available for registration of case before recovery of alleged illicit arms
F.I.R. registered against accused was quashed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973 has bee filed for the quashment of F.I.R: No.361 registered on 23-10-1999 under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 at Police Station Dinga, District Gujrat.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Imtaiz Sarwa Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station, Dinga, District Gujrat recorded F.I.R No.361 on 23-10-1999 at 4-00 a.m. at Police Station, Dinga, District Gujra under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 wherein he narrated that hi received a secret information that Javed Kahlid alias Jaidi son of Mehdi Khat caste Gujjar resident of Khori Main was in possession of a kalashnikov another arms without licence and if -a raid was effected at his house the illicit arms could be recovered. He mentioned in the F.I.R. that a case under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 was made out and that alongwith the police of the Police Station, Kharian and Police Station Sarai Alamgir, he was going to the spot.
3. Expressing that before the recovery of the illicit arms the case could not be registered, the petitioner filed this petition for the quashment of the F. I. R.
4. In the comments the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujrat has admitted the factual position about the registration of the aforesaid criminal case without the recovery of the illicit arms. However, he has taken up the stand that afterwards during the raid the illicit arms were recovered from the house of the petitioner from his possession.
5. This writ petition is admitted for regular hearing and the comments are treated as written statement. -
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate General. I have gone through the file. There is no need to disagree with the learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed before me that without the recovery of the illicit arms the case under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 could not be registered. I would simply express that it is an over-doing on the part of the Police Officer. The learned A.A.-G. did not contest the aforesaid legal proposition. Legally the law can be set in motion after an offence is committed and then the matter is reported to the Police i.e. First Information Report is registered which is lacking in the instant matter. In this view of the matter, it can safely be held that there was no legal or factual justification for the registration of the case required and desired to be quashed through the filing of this petition.
7. For what has been said above, I accept this writ petition and quash F.I.R. No.361 registered on 23-10-1999 under section 13-B of the Arms ordinance, 1965 at Police Station Dinga, District Gujrat. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./J-3/L Petition accepted.