1991 P Cr (PLP)
AMANAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMANAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (AMANAT ALI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 517
Licensed revolver and rifle were recovered from petitioners who were acquitted of the charge under Ss.302 & 148/149, Penal Code, 1860
Confiscation of arms taken into possession from accused had no legal sanction
Arms were returned to petitioners in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 517
Licensed revolver and rifle were recovered from petitioners who were acquitted of the charge under Ss.302 & 148/149, Penal Code, 1860
Confiscation of arms taken into possession from accused had no legal sanction
Arms were returned to petitioners in circumstances. Nemo for Petitioners. Ch. Abdul Aziz for the State. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1991. Amanat Ali and Muhammad Afzal petitioners alongwith others were tried under section 148, section 302/149, P.P.C. for the murder of Lal Khan. They were ultimately acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat on 14-1-1981. They allegedly used fire-arm in the occurrence. During the investigation a revolver was recovered from Amanat Ali petitioner No.l and rifle was recovered from the house of Muhammad Afzal, petitioner No.2. The trial Court although acquitted there yet did not return the fire-arms to them. Instead directed that the revolver and rifle shall stand confiscated in favour of the State. After the decision, the petitioners moved an application before the trial Court for the return of revolver and rifle to them. But the trial Court declined to pass any order on their application and directed that they should seek their remedy in the High Court. Hence this revision.
2. No one has appeared for the petitioners. I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that since the rifle and revolver were not unlicensed arms and were recovered from the possession of the petitioners, so while acquitting the accused of the charge of using these fire-arms for the murder of the deceased, the trial Court should not have confiscated the fire-arms in favour of the State and it should have returned the same to the licence-holders from whom police had taken the same into its possession.
3. For what has been stated above, this revision is accepted and it is directed that the revolver should be returned to Amanat Ali petitioner and the rifle may be returned to Muhammad Afzal petitioner. In the meantime if the licences of the petitioners have not been renewed, they may approach the learned District Magistrate for the renewal of their licences and in the circumstances of the case the District Magistrate would consider their case favourably. With the observations the revision is disposed of. S.A./A-1282/L Revision accepted.