1992 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HAYAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAYAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HAYAT‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. MA. Majid Bajwa for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 16th July, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S: 13‑‑‑Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), Schedule‑‑‑Keeping unlicensed mauzer‑‑‑Conviction for‑‑‑Challenge to‑‑‑Charge against accused was of keeping unlicensed semi‑automatic pistol, but police officials as prosecution witnesses had stated that a `mauzer' containing 3 bullets was recovered from accused‑‑‑Recovery of mauzer from accused not being offence triable by Special Court, conviction and sentence passed by Special Court upon accused, could not sustain‑‑‑Prosecution could, however, submit challan against accused on same charge before Ilaqa Magistrate, if so desired. Bukhtiar Ahmad's case P L J 1991 Cr.C. Lah. 187 ref. Asif Khalil for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J. ‑‑ This Criminal Appeal No.685 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Lahore, whereby ‑‑ he, on 21‑10‑1990 convicted Muhammad Hayat, appellant, under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default thereof one year's R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed semi automatic pistol P.1 on 24‑4‑1990. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Shahid Iqbal, P.W.1, had prepared the formal F.I.R. Fazal Elahi, H.C. P.W.2, stated that in his presence Muhammad Yusuf, S.I. had arrested the appellant and recovered a mauzer containing 3 bullets P.2/1 to 3 which was taken into possession vide memo. P.C. attested by him. Muhammad Yusuf, P.W.3, made similar statement. He stated that the appellant had no licence to keep the mauzer.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the recovery of mauzer from him. He produced Ghulam SarwarD.W.l, in defence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Bukhtiar Ahmad's case P L J 1991 Criminal Cases (Lah.) 187 in which the Division Bench of this court has held that the trial of an accused person on the charge of keeping mauzer by Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) was coram non judice. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
6. We have examined the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. We fully agree with the observation made by this Court in that case. This being the position, there is no option but to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Needless to add that the State would be well within its right to submit challan against the appellant on the same charge before Ilaqa Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner, for his trial in accordance with law. H.B.T./M‑68/L Appeal accepted.