2010 PLP 2439 (YLR)

MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.--The appellant through this appeal challenged order of the trial Court made on 20-9-2008, whereby he has been convicted for offence under section 13-F of Arms Ordinance 1965. It is his contention that the recovered articles i.e. rifle .303 bore and its license being licensed one, therefore, the court has no jurisdiction to order their confiscation. Further, the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, as it is in exclusive jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate. Moreover, the judgment is not speaking one. He has prayed for setting aside of impugned judgment and his acquittal from the charge. As per record F.I.R. No.6 of 2008 Police Station Khatta District Barkhan was registered on 21-7-2008 whereby case was registered against the appellant/accused in respect of recovery of Rifle .303 bore and License No.11-2 dated 23-2-1994. It is apparent from contents of the F.I.R. that the recovered rifle was crime weapon in respect of Case No.5 of 2008 offence under section 302/34 P.P.C. On completion of investigation, case was challaned, while on completion of trial the accused/appellant was convicted of the offence under section 13-F Arms Ordinance, 1965, through judgment made on 20-9-2008, by Sessions Judge, Barkhan at Rakhni, whereby he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000, in case of default he has to further undergo S.I. for three months. While the case property was ordered to be confiscated in favour of the State. Feeling aggrieved of the same the appellant/convict filed present appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned order. As in contents of memo of appeal this fact is not mentioned that the convict/appellant is also involved in murder case, therefore, keeping in view the quantum of the sentence which is only three years, it was deemed fit by this court to dealt it under the Provisions of Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960, therefore, through order made on 24-8-2009 report was called from Probation Officer, who submitted his report on 29-9-2009. The perusal of this report reveals that it is mentioned therein that the appellant is convicted for the offence under section 302, P.P.C. for life imprison ment, further not recommended for probation. The report of S.H.O. attached with the report of Probation Officer mentioned the fact that the appellant was convicted for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. through judgment made on 22-11-2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barkhan. Thus in view of above mentioned facts the appellant being involved rather convicted for an offence under section 302, P.P.C., while recovery of crime weapon was also effected from his possession, for which he has been punished through the order of the trial Court presently impugned before this Court, thus his case is not fit to be dealt under the provisions of Ordinance of 1960. He cannot take benefit under the same. As far as merits of the case are concerned, he has completely failed to make out any case in his favour; there are no grounds to interfere in the findings of the trial Court. The appellant maliciously concealed the fact of his involvement in a murder case and his conviction thereon. As far as order in respect of confiscation of crime weapon and license is concerned, though the appellant has asserted it to be licensed one, but admittedly the license was expired in 1999 and since then the appellant was in possession of the same without any legal title. It is deemed to be unlicensed. Thus comes within the purview of the offence/ charge levelled against him. Furthermore, though as per law the cases registered under provisions of Arms Ordinance, 1965 are to be tried by the Judicial Magistrate. But in present case as the major offence was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barkhan, therefore, the case relating to recovery and possession of crime weapon is also required to be dealt and tried by the same court, in order to avoid any conflicting order, in respect of both the offences, which has rightly been done in present case. There is no illegality in the same. The appellant has completely failed to make out any case on merits too. The appeal filed by him is hereby dismissed, while judgment of the trial Court is hereby upheld. H.B.T./54/Q Appeal dismissed.