2013 PLP 834 (SCMR)
MADAD KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2013 PLP 834 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasir-ul-Mulk, Tariq Parvez and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | MADAD KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 834 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 834 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Tariq Parvez and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 834 (SCMR) (MADAD KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 2012.
- Kh. Azhar Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 17-8-2012 passed in Cr. M. Nos.1043 and 1044-P of 2012).
S. 497 & Sched. II
Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Ss.13 & 14
Possession and smuggling of illegal weapons
Offence under S. 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965
Scope
Section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was bailable, except in the Province of Punjab where the said offence was non-bailable
Accused (from KPK) were entitled to bail as of right and were granted bail accordingly. Kh. Azhar Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR-UL-MULK, J.
The petitioners were apprehended after a large quantity of arms and ammunition recovered from the private vehicle in which they were traveling. The vehicle was allegedly driven by Madad Khan and Gul Rehman was stated to be sitting in the front passenger seat. The arms and ammunition were recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle. The petitioners were declined bail by the Trial as well as High Courts.
2. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the offences for which the petitioners were charged, namely sections 13/14 of the Arms Ordinance, are bailable and that the High Court had erred in applying the amendment of the Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code for the Province of Punjab.
3. The learned counsel representing the State when confronted with this argument was not in a position to controvert the same. The offence under section 13 is punishable with 7 years' imprisonment. According to Schedule-II of Cr.P.C. under the heading "Offences Against Other Laws" offences carrying punishment of more than 3 years but not exceeding 7 years are not bailable with the exception of offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, which have been expressly declared to be bailable. The Province of Punjab has brought about an amendment whereby the offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance has also been made non-bailable. The two judgments relied upon by the High Court, one from the Balochistan High Court, Quetta and the other of the High Court of Sindh, are distinguishable, as those cases were dealt with under the Arms Act, 1878 and not the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
4. In view of this legal position, the offence of section 13 of the Arms Ordinance being bailable, the petitioners are entitled to bail as of right. They were therefore admitted to bail by short order dated 15-10-2012, which is reproduced here:-- "For reasons to be recorded later, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants are admitted to bail for the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court." MWA/M-9/SC Bail granted.