2018 PLP 11 (YLRN)
The STATE — Petitioner Versus ASADULLAH — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 PLP 11 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Alam and Malik Haq Nawaz, JJ |
| Parties | The STATE — Petitioner Versus ASADULLAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 11 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 11 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Muhammad Alam and Malik Haq Nawaz, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 11 (YLRN) (The STATE — Petitioner Versus ASADULLAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Sherbaz, Deputy Advocate General for Appellant/State.
- None for Respondent.
- MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The instant criminal revision petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. read with section 526 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the learned Deputy Advocate General against the order dated 17-04-2013, passed by learned trial Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No. II, Gilgit.
- 2. The respondent Asadullah son of Muhammad Ayoub was arrested by a police party being headed by SIP Zahoor Ahmed of Police Station City Gilgit. It is mentioned in the FIR No. 75/2012 that the accused Asadullah was arrested by the local police with a 30 bore pistol and the instant FIR was registered. The learned trial Court transferred the instant case from Anti Terrorism Court to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Gilgit. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the learned Deputy Advocate General filed the instant criminal revision contending that the pistol so recovered was used in commission of the offences pertaining to FIR No. 112/2012, 41/2012 and 257/2011 of Police Station City Gilgit.
- 3. We are afraid that such a vague contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the pistol has not been recovered on the pointation of the respondent during investigation of particular case as a weapon of offence. Furthermore the FIR No. 75/2012 has been registered under section 13-A.O. of P.P.C. and not under any provision of ATA-1997. Furthermore the criminal revision petition has been filed after two and half years which is hopelessly time barred.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 526
Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13
Powers of High Court to transfer case
Accused was arrested by the local police with a .30-bore pistol
Trial Court transferred the case from Anti-Terrorism Court to the court of Judicial Magistrate
Record showed that pistol had not been recovered on the pointation of accused during investigation of the case as a weapon of offence
FIR under S.13, Arms Ordinance, 1965 and not under any provision of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had been registered against the accused
Petition had been filed after two and half years, which was time barred
Revision was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The instant criminal revision petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. read with section 526 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the learned Deputy Advocate General against the order dated 17-04-2013, passed by learned trial Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No. II, Gilgit.
2. The respondent Asadullah son of Muhammad Ayoub was arrested by a police party being headed by SIP Zahoor Ahmed of Police Station City Gilgit. It is mentioned in the FIR No. 75/2012 that the accused Asadullah was arrested by the local police with a 30 bore pistol and the instant FIR was registered. The learned trial Court transferred the instant case from Anti Terrorism Court to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Gilgit. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the learned Deputy Advocate General filed the instant criminal revision contending that the pistol so recovered was used in commission of the offences pertaining to FIR No. 112/2012, 41/2012 and 257/2011 of Police Station City Gilgit.
3. We are afraid that such a vague contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the pistol has not been recovered on the pointation of the respondent during investigation of particular case as a weapon of offence. Furthermore the FIR No. 75/2012 has been registered under section 13-A.O. of P.P.C. and not under any provision of ATA-1997. Furthermore the criminal revision petition has been filed after two and half years which is hopelessly time barred.
4. We see no substance in the above criminal revision which we dismissed accordingly. JK/162/GB Revision dismissed.