P L D 2000 Peshawar 3 (PLP)
ADAM KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2000 Peshawar 3 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdur Rauf Khan Lughmani and Shazad Akbar Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ADAM KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Peshawar 3 (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 P L D 2000 Peshawar 3 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdur Rauf Khan Lughmani and Shazad Akbar Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Peshawar 3 (PLP) (ADAM KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dost Muhammad Khan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑No report of Fire‑arms Expert regarding the bore of the unlicensed pistol. allegedly recovered from accused had been obtained by the prosecution‑‑‑Even the report of Armourer of the Police Department in that, regard was not available‑‑‑Prosecution, thus, had failed to determine the nature of the fire‑arm recovered from the accused‑‑‑Accused was acquitted in circumstances. PLJ 1995 Pesh. 176 and PLD 1994 Lah. 93 rel. Muhammad Khan Khakwani for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUR RAUF KHAN LUGHMANI, J.‑‑On 13‑1‑1997 at 13‑30 hours, in order to arrest accused in case F.I.R. No. 14, dated 13‑1‑1997 under section.302/34, P.P.C., the local police blocked the road near Paharkhel. In the meantime, two persons were seen coming. The police party after hot pursuit arrested them. The persons disclosed their names as Rasool Khan and Adam Khan, appellant, herein. Out of latter's possession, the police party allegedly recovered one .30 bore pistol with '30 live rounds. He was accordingly, arrested in the case and a case under section 13, Arms Ordinance was registered against him, vide F:LR. No. 15, dated 13‑1‑1997.
2. After the completion of usual police investigation, challan was put in Court. The trial Court at the end of trial, convicted the appellant under section 13, Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to undergo three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to further S.I. for six months. The appellant/convict has now filed the instant appeal challenging the validity of his conviction/sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge, Lakki, dated 6‑11‑1998.
3. The prosecution case is that recovery of .30 bore pistol was made from the appellant. On the other hand the, appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the recovery of the said pistol and in fact said that the same was recovered from one Izzat Khan. In support of prosecution case, there is no arms expert report regarding bore of the pistol. Even there is no report of Armourer of the Police Department. In these circumstances, the nature of the arm recovered from the appellant has not been determined. Reliance is placed at PLJ 1995 Pesh. 176 and PLD 1994 Lahore 93.
4. This being the position, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to determine nature of the arms i.e. its bore etc. Accordingly, this appeal'' is accepted. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge, Lakki is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. N.H.Q./432/P Appeal accepted