2025 PLP 597 (MLD)
Mir Nooroze Ali — Appellant Versus The State — Respondent
| Citation | 2025 PLP 597 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Larkana Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mir Nooroze Ali — Appellant Versus The State — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 597 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 597 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Larkana Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 597 (MLD) (Mir Nooroze Ali — Appellant Versus The State — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.23(1)(a)
Present case offshoot of another case
Acquittal recorded in other case
Effect
Prosecution case was that an unlicensed pistol with magazine containing 03 live bullets was recovered from the possession of accused
From the perusal of the record it appeared that the recovery shown from the appellant originated from the incident of case for the offence under S.365-B, P.P.C, alleging abduction of wife of complainant of that case by the appellant and his brother on gunpoint in a car
However, due to accident of the car, the appellant was apprehended along with pistol being allegedly carried by him and was produced before police
Record transpired that the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant, mainly for the reason that alleged abductee did not support the prosecution case, stating that no such incident had occurred
Surprisingly, the Trial Court, on one hand, believing the evidence of alleged abductee, acquitted the appellant of the charge of abduction, then the question was on what basis the evidence of mashir/eye-witness, who had produced the appellant before police claiming to have apprehended him along with the weapon after the incident of abduction, was believed
Trial Court had not properly appreciated the entire material and had not applied judicious mind to evaluate/appreciate the facts and circumstances of case in hand
In such circumstances, the other oral and documentary evidence brought on record, was of no effect, rather, the very recovery of offensive weapon became doubtful
Since the appellant had been acquitted from the charge of main case, the propriety of law demanded that the appellant should also be acquitted from the charge of present case, which was offshoot of main case
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.
Through instant criminal appeal, the appellant has called in question the Judgment dated 25.07.2024 (impugned judgment) penned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kandhkot, vide Sessions Case No.48 / 2024 (re: State v. Mir Nooroze Ali Domki). The case is outcome of Crime No.75/2024, registered at P.S A-Section, Kandhkot, for offence under Sections 23(1)(a) and 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013. After recording evidence and determination of points, the trial Court held the appellant guilty of charge under section 25, Sindh Arms Act, 2013, convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10(ten) years, and to pay fine of Rs.200,000/-. In case of default, the appellant was directed to undergo S.I. for two years more. However, the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C was extended to the appellant/ convict.
2. According to the case of prosecution, on 18.03.2024, at about 1200 hours, the appellant was allegedly apprehended by Sadar Ali and Noor Muhammad, both by caste Shaikh, at Daya Muhalla of Kandihkot town and an unlicensed Pistol with magazine containing 03 live bullets was recovered from him; whereafter, they took and handed over the custody of appellant along with recovered weapon and a GLI Car in accidented condition to HC Abdul Jabbar, being duty officer at PS A-Section, Kandhkot, who finding the aforementioned weapon unlicensed sealed it under memo and booked the appellant in this case. Besides, another FIR vide Crime No.74/2024, for offence under section 365-B, P.P.C. was also lodged by one Shaman Ali Shaikh against the appellant at the same police station at 1230 hours.
3. A formal charge was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined and relied upon the evidence of in all five witnesses i.e. complainant/author HC Abdul Jabbar, mashir/eye-witness Noor Muhammad Shaikh, IO/ASI Muhammad Anwar, incharge Malkhana WPC Sadam Hussain and dispatch official PC Niaz Muhammad. They exhibited several documents in their evidence.
5. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C, the appellant/accused denied the prosecution case and claimed to be innocent and implicated at the behest of complainant of main case vide Crime No.74/2024. However, neither he examined himself on oath nor produced any witness in his defence.
6. After formulating the points for determination. recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hearing counsel for the parties, trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant / accused, as stated above. Against said judgment, the appellant has preferred instant appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offensive weapon was foisted upon the appellant at the behest of complainant of main case Crime No.74/2024. He further submits that the appellant has been acquitted of the charge of said main case and this being offshoot case, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted in this case as well.
8. Learned Addl. Prosecutor General does not support the impugned judgment and submits that since the appellant has been acquitted from charges of above-mentioned main case, therefore he has no objection for grant of instant appeal and acquittal of the appellant in this case in the light of dicta laid down in the cases reported as Manjhi v. The State (PLD 1996 Karachi 345) and Fida Hussain v. The State (2012 PCr.LJ 226).
9. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Addl. P.G for the State and have perused the material available on the record.
10. From perusal of the record it appears that the recovery shown from the appellant originates from the incident of Crime No.74/2024 lodged by one Shaman Ali Shaikh at same police station for offence under section 365-B, P.P.C. alleging abduction of his wife Mst. Asia on 18.3.2024, at 12.00 o'clock, by the appellant and his brother Sheroz Khan on gunpoint in a car; however, due to accident of the car, the appellant was apprehended along with pistol being allegedly carried by him and was produced before police. From perusal of judgment dated 29.06.2024 rendered in the main case based on Crime No.74/2024, copy whereof is available on record, it appears that the trial Court has acquitted the appellant, mainly for the reason that alleged abductee Mst. Asia did not support the prosecution case, stating that no such incident had occurred. It is surprising to note that the trial Court, on one hand, believing the evidence of Mst. Asia, the alleged abductee of Crime No.74/2024, acquitted the appellant of the charge in said crime, then on what basis the evidence of mashir/eye-witness Noor Muhammad, who had produced the appellant before police claiming to have apprehended him along with the weapon after the incident of Crime No.74/2024, was believed. It appears that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the entire material and not applied judicious mind to evaluate/appreciate the facts and circumstances of case in hand. In such circumstances, the other oral and documentary evidence brought on record, is of no effect: rather, the very recovery of offensive weapon becomes doubtful.
11. Since the appellant has been acquitted from the charge of main case; the propriety of law demands the appellant should also be acquitted from the charge of instant case, which is offshoot of said main case. In this connection reliance may be placed on the case of Yasir Chaudhry v. The State reported in 2012 MLD 1315, wherein it was held by learned Bench of the Lahore High Court as under:- "In the case reported as Manjhi v. The State (PLD 1996 Karachi 345) it has been held that when the accused has been acquitted in the main case, he would become entitled to acquittal in a case which is offshoot of the said case. Same is the position here, as the present lis is an offshoot of the main murder case, so, respectfully following the dictum laid down in the judgment supra, this petition is allowed and the application of the petitioner under section 249-A Cr.P.C. is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted from the charge in case FIR No.17 of 2003 dated 12.1.2003 registered under section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act No.XXI of 1991 with Police Station Civil Lines, Bahawalpur."
12. Keeping in view above factual as well as legal position, it can safely be held that the accused / appellant deserves his acquittal in this offshoot case as well.
13. For what has been discussed above, instant Criminal Appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2024, handed down by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kandhkot, vide Sessions Case No.48 of 2024 (re: State v. Mir Nooroze Ali Domki), being outcome of FIR No.75/2024 registered at Police Station A-Section, Kandhkot, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case. JK/M-11/Sindh Appeal allowed.