1995 PLP 59 (SCMR)

Representation

• Tassadiq Hussain Jilani, Advocate‑General with Naveed Rasul, Addl. Advocate‑General instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on- Record for Appellants (in both Appeals).
• Nemo for Respondents (in both Appeals).
• Date of hearing: 13th October, 1993.
• According to learned Advocate‑General the words automatic and semi‑automatic weapon signify any weapon which is automatic or semi- automatic. The High Court did not agree this argument. It has been observed in the impugned judgment as follows:‑‑
• "Learned Additional Advocate‑General drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the words `automatic or semi‑authomatic weapon' in section 13‑A were followed by the words `such as Klashnikov, a G‑III rifle or any other type of assault rifle' to build up the argument that the words `such as' were illustrative and not exhaustive and referred to any type of `automatic or semi‑automatic' weapon. The Mauser, according to him, are automatic or semi automtic pistol or revolver and thus would also be covered under section 13‑A. The offences with respect to these would, therefore, fall in paragraph (c) to the Schedule of Act of 1975 and thus exclusively triable by the Courts constituted under the Act. Of course words `such as' are illustrative but while visualizing other weapons/arms of the Category of Klashnikov, a G‑III rifle or any other type of assault rifle, the principle of ejusdem generis is to be kept in view. A weapon which is not automatic or semi‑automatic and not a rifle of the kind of Klashinikov, a G‑III or other assault rifle cannot be considered to be covered by section 13‑A. Had the intention of the Legislature been to bring all automatic or semi‑automatic weapons under its purview then its portion "Whoever sells or keeps, offers or exposes for sale a cannon, grenade, bomb, rocket or light or heavy automatic or semi automatic weapon', would have sufficed with no need to continue with the words `such as Klashinikov, a G‑III rifle or any other type of assault rifle'. And finally a revolver of a pistol could well have also been added in the section to make it all comprehensive".
• The learned Advocate‑General has contended that the language used in the Statute is indicative of the fact that the capacity of the weapon automatic or semi‑automatic and its type no doubt are to be kept in mind but its shape and structure such as the examples given in the Statute will also have to be kept in mind in order to see the awe and terror intended to be created by its user as well as felt by the victim: The weapons shown in Court show that while 3 Mauser pistols automatic/semi‑automatic are 11 inches long each (from the hammer to the end of the barrel) the M.P‑5 automatic rifle has similar 15 inches length and that of A.U.G. similar rifle is 13 inches. Thus all the three types being automatic (except that the latter are called rifles and the former pistols) their use and affect, prima facie, can be considered as similar. Thus he argued that the small pistols even if automatic and semi‑automatic, although going up to the length of 7/1‑2 inches, one of which was seen, could be. treated as ordinary pistols and excluded for the present purpose; but, the Mauser pistols in question, while being automatic and semi‑automatic, are also such as the rifles mentioned in the Statute.
• 2. The learned Advocate‑General has not been able to persuade us to agree with the submission that the fire‑arms recovered from the respondents fall within the category of weapons mentioned in paragraph (c) of the Schedule to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 as amended. It was rightly observed by the High Court that "Mauser as such is not a weapon but is the name of the, manufacturer (from Germany) of the pistols and revolvers. Mauser pistol is' a type of automatic pistol made by Mauser of Germany (Gupta's Ballistic Fire‑Arms and Jurisprudence referred). The weapons allegedly recovered in these cases were not the product of Mauser but were a local production. According to the FIR the word 'Pak Made' was inscribed on the body of the fire‑arm recovered from Najam‑ul‑Hassan respondent and `Made in Pakistan' on the barrel of the weapon recovered from Bakhtiar Ahmad respondent.
• After hearing the learned Advocate‑General we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the finding that the pistols allegedly recovered from the respondents did not fall within the category of the weapons necessitating trial exclusively by the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. Consequently both the appeals are dismissed.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree