2015 PLP 924 (YLR)
ABDULLAH — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2015 PLP 924 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | Amer Raza Naqvi, J |
| Parties | ABDULLAH — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 924 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 924 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Amer Raza Naqvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 924 (YLR) (ABDULLAH — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mustafa Rajpar for Appellant.
- ----S. 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed firearm---Accused not defended by an advocate---Accused himself cross-examining witnesses---Effect---Conviction and sentence of accused were set-aside in such circumstances and case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh---High Court directed that there was no need to frame a fresh charge, and that accused would remain on bail subject to furnishing fresh surety---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
- AMER RAZA NAQVI, J.---This appeal has been filed against order dated 3-7-2014 passed by VIIIth Assistant Sessions Judge, Karachi East in Sessions case No. 675/2013 registered in consequence of FIR No. 202/2013, under section 23-A(i) Sindh Arms Act, Police Station Zaman Town. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that at the bottom of typed page 3 of the order learned trial Court has observed that accused has failed to produce any proof before the Court regarding his innocence. Learned counsel has also pointed out that accused was not given an opportunity of being defended by a legal practitioner and all the witnesses were cross-examined by accused himself. Nothing has been mentioned in the impugned order that accused opted not to be defended by any defence counsel. Both the learned counsel have pointed out that in the main case in respect of the same incident accused persons were acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. within less than three months and no private person turned up in such case although there were private witnesses. In the present case also the only private mashir was not examined. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General submits that case should be remanded back to the trial Court with the direction that in case accused wants to be defended by counsel witnesses should be recalled and advocate should be allowed to cross examine the witnesses.
- In the above facts and circumstances impugned order is set aside and case is remanded back to the trial Court to decide the same afresh. There will be no need to frame any fresh charge, however advocate of the accused should be mentioned in the impugned order that accused was on bail. He will remain on bail but will be required to furnish fresh surety as according to learned counsel for the appellant surety furnished earlier was withdrawn by the appellant. On furnishing fresh surety in the same terms on which he was earlier granted bail accused shall be released by the trial Court on bail. In the above terms this appeal stands disposed of.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 23(1)(a)
Possession of unlicensed firearm
Accused not defended by an advocate
Accused himself cross-examining witnesses
Effect
Conviction and sentence of accused were set-aside in such circumstances and case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh
High Court directed that there was no need to frame a fresh charge, and that accused would remain on bail subject to furnishing fresh surety
Appeal was disposed of accordingly. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, A.P.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
AMER RAZA NAQVI, J.
This appeal has been filed against order dated 3-7-2014 passed by VIIIth Assistant Sessions Judge, Karachi East in Sessions case No. 675/2013 registered in consequence of FIR No. 202/2013, under section 23-A(i) Sindh Arms Act, Police Station Zaman Town. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that at the bottom of typed page 3 of the order learned trial Court has observed that accused has failed to produce any proof before the Court regarding his innocence. Learned counsel has also pointed out that accused was not given an opportunity of being defended by a legal practitioner and all the witnesses were cross-examined by accused himself. Nothing has been mentioned in the impugned order that accused opted not to be defended by any defence counsel. Both the learned counsel have pointed out that in the main case in respect of the same incident accused persons were acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. within less than three months and no private person turned up in such case although there were private witnesses. In the present case also the only private mashir was not examined. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General submits that case should be remanded back to the trial Court with the direction that in case accused wants to be defended by counsel witnesses should be recalled and advocate should be allowed to cross examine the witnesses. In the above facts and circumstances impugned order is set aside and case is remanded back to the trial Court to decide the same afresh. There will be no need to frame any fresh charge, however advocate of the accused should be mentioned in the impugned order that accused was on bail. He will remain on bail but will be required to furnish fresh surety as according to learned counsel for the appellant surety furnished earlier was withdrawn by the appellant. On furnishing fresh surety in the same terms on which he was earlier granted bail accused shall be released by the trial Court on bail. In the above terms this appeal stands disposed of. MWA/A-142/Sindh Order accordingly.