2007 P Cr (PLP)
JAMIL AHMED — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Quetta |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAMIL AHMED — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 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 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Quetta bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 P Cr (PLP) (JAMIL AHMED — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General. The learned counsel .for the appellant at the very outset contended that while convicting appellant the learned Judge should have taken into consideration section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 as to whether the appellant was entitled to be released on probation being first offender and a student but the learned Judge without considering section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 directed him to be sent to Juvenile Ward of the jail.
- The learned Assistant Advocate-General though opposed the appeal on merits, however, submitted that the learned trial Court should have considered the provisions of section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13(e)
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.11
Court under provisions of S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, on conclusion of an inquiry or trial, notwithstanding anything contained in airy law, if would think fit, could direct the child offender to be released on probation for good conduct and place such child under the security of guardian or any suitable person executing a bond or without surety as the court could require for the good behaviour and well being of the child for any period not exceeding .the period of imprisonment awarded to such child
Juvenile Court was under legal obligation to consider said provisions before recording any conviction
Juvenile Court, in the present case, did not adhere to said provisions
Case was remanded with the consent of parties to Additional Sessions Judge with the powers of the court under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 to consider provisions of S.11 of the Ordinance and pass appropriate order in that behalf.
Judgment & Decree
AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J.
The appellant has been convicted under section 13(e) of Arms Ordinance, 1965 to three years' S.I. with fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof to further undergo one month's S.I. by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta with the powers of Court under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 on finding him guilty for keeping in possession one kalashnikov and live .cartridges without licence. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General. The learned counsel .for the appellant at the very outset contended that while convicting appellant the learned Judge should have taken into consideration section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 as to whether the appellant was entitled to be released on probation being first offender and a student but the learned Judge without considering section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 directed him to be sent to Juvenile Ward of the jail. The learned Assistant Advocate-General though opposed the appeal on merits, however, submitted that the learned trial Court should have considered the provisions of section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. I have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the parties' learned counsel. It may be observed that under section 11 of the Juvenile Justice Ordinance, 2000 the Court on conclusion of an inquiry or trial notwithstanding anything contained in any law, if it thinks fit, can direct the child offender to be released on probation for good conduct and place such child under the security of guardian or any suitable person executing a bond or without surety as the Court may require for the good behaviour and well-being of the child for any period not exceeding the period of imprisonment awarded to such child and the Juvenile Court is under legal obligation to consider said provisions before recording any conviction but in the instant case the learned Juvenile Court did not adhere to the above said provisions; as such; with consent of the parties, I am inclined to remand the case to Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta with the powers of Court under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 to consider the provisions of section 11 of the Juvenile Justice system Ordinance, 2000 and pass an appropriate order in this behalf. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The record of trial Court along with copy of this order be retransmitted to the trial Court. H.B.T./20/Q Case remanded.