1987 PLP 3093 (MLD)

Amanat Ali Bokhari for the Complainant. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 31st August, 1987. The appellant Shabbir Ahmad has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence awarded to him under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965. He was sentenced to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment vide the judgment dated 28-7-1986 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was also convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment under section 302/34 P.P.C. for the murder of Daulat Ali deceased. During investigation, the appellant while in police custody, got recovered chhuri P.1 from his residential room which chhuri was hidden behind a big iron box in its south-eastern corner. The said weapon of offence was taken into possession vide Memo. Ex. P.4. which was attested by Dewan and Sardar Muhammad P.Ws. The appellant failed to produce any valid licence for the aforesaid weapon of offence. A complaint Ex. P.B. was prepared by the Investigating Officer.

3. The prosecution produced Sardar Muhammad (P.W.1) and Muhammad Aslam ASI (P.W.2) to prove its case against the appellant. Both the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and on the basis of this evidence, as stated earlier, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment dated 28-7-1986.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the mandatory provisions contained in section 14-A of the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not at all competent to try the appellant. On the contrary, the learned. Magistrate 1st Class was the only competent Court to try the appellant. He stated that the whole trial of the appellant in view of this position of law is without jurisdiction. Mr. Altaf Muhammad Khan, learned State counsel, has conceded the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. He stated that the trial of the appellant is wholly without lawful authority and as such, he submitted that the conviction and sentence of the appellant may be declared null and void. In view of the position taken by learned counsel for the State, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not at all competent to try the appellant in the case in hand and as such, the order of conviction and sentence awarded t the appellant is declared to be without jurisdiction and the same is set aside. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted. M. Y. H. /S-100/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.