P L D 2000 Karachi 338 (PLP)
ABDUL KHALIL — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2000 Karachi 338 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL KHALIL — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Karachi 338 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2000 Karachi 338 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Karachi 338 (PLP) (ABDUL KHALIL — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- 4. There is nothing on record to suggest compliance of the abovesaid requirement. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has also conceded to this position.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 5 & 7
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-E-- Appreciation of evidence
Accused was not charged with an offence falling within the purview of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, nor the consent of the Provincial Government or an officer authorised in such behalf by the Provincial Government had been obtained for the trial of accused as required by S.7 of the said Act
Conviction and sentence of accused under S.5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1968 by the Trial Court ' were consequently set aside
Accused, however, was liable to be convicted under S. 13-E of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 on the basis of evidence available on the record and he was convicted thereunder accordingly and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.--The appellant through this appeal has assailed his conviction and sentence of 7 years' R.I. for an offence under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 awarded by the learned Court of Special Judge (STA), Malir vide its judgment dated 18-10-1999. The appellant has been given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The appellant was charged with offence under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance and section 4%5 of the Explosives Act, 1884 for possessing 5.Rockets (Golas) and 4 Fuses on 14-9-1995 at Qayyumabad Graveyard within the jurisdiction of Police Station Gulzar-e-Hijri, Karachi.
3. The appellant as stated above has not been convicted for any of the offences under the aforesaid enactments but has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The two Acts are separate enactments and in force till date. The appellant admittedly was not charged with an offence falling within the purview of the Act of 1908. His conviction and sentence cannot, therefore, be allowed to sustain for more than one reason. Important of them being section 7 which is reproduced hereunder:-- "Restriction on trial of offences.--No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Provincial Government or an officer authorised in this behalf by the Provincial Government."
4. There is nothing on record to suggest compliance of the abovesaid requirement. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has also conceded to this position.
5. Mr. Shaukat Hussain Durrani, learned counsel for the appellant was then asked whether the appellant was not liable for conviction under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance to which he contended that the prosecution evidence consisted of only of police officials and the appellant has already remained in custody for about. four years.'
6. Mr. Syed Jalil A. Hashmi, learned A.A.-G. appearing for the State has rightly not supported the appellant's conviction under the aforesaid Act of 1908 but submitted that the appellant would be liable for the offence of section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance and also conceded to the reduction in the appellant's sentence to one already undergone.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case and evidence on record and have reached a conclusion that the sentence already suffered by the appellant, which comes to 3 years and 9 months by now, I would be valid and justified. Accordingly, we had by a short order dated 14-3-2000 converted/modified the conviction and sentence of the appellant to one already undergone under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance and ordered his release forthwith while dismissing his appeal. Above are the reasons for the said short order. N.H.Q./A-60/K Order accordingly.