1992 P Cr (PLP)
TARIQ MEHMOOD ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Rashid Aziz Khan, JJ |
| Parties | TARIQ MEHMOOD ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 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 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Rashid Aziz Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (TARIQ MEHMOOD ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafique Khan Chauhan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Burden was on prosecution to prove that not only accused was keeping unlicensed stengun but that he had no licence to keep it‑‑‑Unless aforesaid two ingredients were proved, accused could not be convicted‑‑‑None of witnesses produced by prosecution had stated that accused had no licence to keep stengun with him‑‑‑Prosecution having failed to prove case against accused, he was acquitted of charge. Ch. Nazir Ahmad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑‑ This Criminal Appeal No.391 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, whereby he, on 6‑6‑1990 convicted Tariq Mehmood, appellant, under section 13 of the Arms Ordnance, 1965, and sentenced him to five years' R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed stengun P.1 on 7‑5‑1989 which was recovered from him by Javed Iqbal P.W.4, Inspector, vide recovery memo. Exh.P.C. attested by Nazir Hussain S.I., P.W.2 and Muhammad Hussain Sadiq A.S.I. P.W.3. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case; the prosecution produced four witnesses. Abdul Hameed, A.S.I. P.W.1, drafted the formal F.I.R. Nazar Hussain, S.I. P.W.2, Muhammad Hussain Sadiq, P.W.3 and Javed Iqbal, Inspector, P.WA, are the recovery witnesses. They stated that on 7‑5‑1989 the appellant had got unlicensed stengun P.1 recovered from his Dera situated in Mohallah Fattomand, Gujranwala.
4. When examined under section, 342,' Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the recovery of stengun from him. He did not produce any witness in defence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution has failed to prove that the stengun P.1 recovered from the appellant was an unlicensed arm. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
6. We have considered the matter carefully. We find that none of the witnesses stated that the appellant had no licence to keep stengun with him. The burden was on the prosecution to prove that not only the appellant was keeping unlicensed stengun but he had no licence to keep it. Unless the aforesaid two ingredients were/are proved the appellant could not/cannot be convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
7. For these reasons, we are convinced that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the appellant.
8. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. H.B.T./ T‑4/L Appeal accepted.