2018 PLP 889 (YLR)
GHULAM HAIDER — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 PLP 889 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Wazir Shakeel Ahmad, C.J. and Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HAIDER — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 889 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 889 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Wazir Shakeel Ahmad, C.J. and Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 889 (YLR) (GHULAM HAIDER — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Hussain for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 25
Possession of arm without license
Rifle was recovered from accused which was owned by an absconding accused
Accused was booked for offence under S. 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965 and convicted by Anti-Terrorism Court
Proceedings undertaken by Anti-Terrorism Court under S. 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965 were unwarranted and conviction was also illegally awarded to accused
Case was remanded to the court of competent jurisdiction (Judicial Magistrate) for trial. Dy. A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The appellant was convicted by the Judge Anti Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit vide judgment dated 22.10.2013 and awarded 7 years RI under section 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965. The appellant filed an appeal against the said conviction. The sentence of the appellant was suspended on 03-06-2014 mainly on the ground that the appellant was convicted by the trial Court without framing of charge under section 13 A.O. 1965.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that 9 accused were booked for the offences under sections 302/324/34/337-D/392/429, P.P.C., sections 21(L) and 6/7 of ATA, 1997 vide FIR No. 480/2005 of Police Station Gilgit and on conclusion of trial the learned trial Court beside the various kinds of punishments awarded to co-accused/ proclaimed offenders also convicted the appellant under section 13 A.O. and awarded him the punishment as mentioned above.
3. We have gone through the contents of FIR No. 299/2006 dated 04.12.2006 and found that during investigation of case No. 480/2005 one five shot rifle was recovered from the possession of the appellant and as per prosecutions' own version narrated in the FIR the said rifle was the ownership of an absconding accused namely Khan Wali son of Niamat Khan. Since the rifle was recovered from the possession of the appellant he was booked for the above offence and also convicted by the learned trial Court.
4. We wonder how the appellant was convicted by ATC No. 1 Gilgit for an offence under section 13 A.O. for merely keeping an unlicensed rifle in his home. The proceedings undertaken by the learned trial Court are unwarranted and the conviction was also illegally awarded. We set aside the conviction awarded by the learned Judge ATC No. 1 and remand the case back to the ordinary Court of learned Administrative Judge (Judicial Magistrate) Gilgit for trial. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 19.11.2016. The accused is on bail as his sentence was suspended under section 426, Cr.P.C. The sureties tendered in the light of order dated 13.06.2016 will remain intact. Record of the case be transmitted to the learned Administrative Judge/Judicial Magistrate Gilgit immediately. WA/149/GB Case remanded.