1987 PLP 1247 (MLD)
GHULAM FARID — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1247 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan: and Lehrasap Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM FARID — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1247 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1247 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan: and Lehrasap Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1247 (MLD) (GHULAM FARID — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Ehsan Qadir Shah for Appellant.
- Dates of hearing: 27th and 28th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.13 &14 [as amended by Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance (XXI of 1976)--Jurisdiction--Offence under S. 13, Arms Ordinance made exclusively triable by a Magistrate of 1st Class, trial of offence by Sessions Judge, held, was coram non judice and conviction and sentence passed by him nullity in the eye of law.--[Jurisdiction]. (b) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)
S. 13--Remand of case--Trial under S. 13 by Sessions Judge having no jurisdiction in the matter--Occurrence taking place, more than six years ago and accused already having suffered agony of protracted trial or connected murder case as also trial in arms case--Ordering retrial declined by High Court in circumstances. Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
LEHRASAP KHAN, J.--The appellant Ghulam Farid has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab, vide his judgment, dated 15-5-1983, under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (Ordinance No.XX of 1965) and sentenced to one year's R.I. He has challenged his conviction and sentence through the present appeal.
2. It is alleged that during the investigation of the main murder case under section 302/34, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No. 306, dated 29-10-1981, the appellant led to the recovery of pistol P.1, for which he did not possess any licence. The alleged recovery allegedly took place on 13-11-1981.
3. It is noteworthy that Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, has been amended by the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976 (Ordinance XXI of 1976). Through the amendment so brought about in the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, section 14-A, has been added which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), an offence punishable under section 14, shall be triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. Subsection (2) of section 14-A, so added further provides that all cases relating to offences triable by a Magistrate of the First Clu_1 under subsection (1) and pending in a Court of Session immediately before the commencement of the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, in which the charge had not been framed shall; on such commencement, stand transferred to the Court of the Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction over such cases. It is note worthy/' that the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976 (Ordinance' '"XI of 1976 was promulgated on 25th May, 1976 and it, in to force at once.
4. As already stated, in the present case the offence allegedly took place in 1981 i.e. long after the coming into force of the amendment brought about by the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976. J he offence was, therefore, exclusively triable by the Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in the area. The learned Sessions Judge "lid not have jurisdiction in the matter. Trial by him is, therefore, coram nonjudice and the conviction and sentence passed by him is thus a nullity in the eye of law.
5. Ordinarily we would have remanded this case to the Court of the learned Magistrate First Class having jurisdiction in the area for re-trial but we do not deem this course to be expedient in view of the fact that the occurrence took place as back as 1981 and the appellant has already suffered the agony of protracted murder trial as also the trial in this case.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. S.G.D.,/G-41/L Order accordingly