1998 P Cr (PLP)

RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.‑‑‑ The petitioner who is facing trial on a charge under section 13‑A(2)B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 before the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Karachi‑West for being found in possession of pistol No.A‑2994 of .30 bore and three live cartridges on or about 10‑6‑1997 seeks the quashment of the proceedings in Special Case No. 1230 of 1997 pending against him.

2. According to the prosecution, petitioner was arrested by Mominabad Police on the material day alongwith the aforesaid weapon and ammunition without any licence in violation of the law, thus, a case was registered against him and he was sent up. He moved an application for his acquittal under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court on the averments that he held the incriminating weapon and the ammunition under a valid authority from the Officer Commander of his Unit where he was employed but the trial Court declined to accept his contention and rejected the prayer for acquittal at this stage of the case without recording evidence. It is in these circumstances that the present petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. has been moved before the High Court.

3. For proper appreciation of the controversy and the submissions made at the Bar section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. may be reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "561‑A. Saving of inherent power of High Court ‑‑‑ Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is an employee of Pakistan Rangers and that he was duly authorised to go armed with the pistol alongwith the loaded ammunition by his Officer Incharge which he had shown to the police party at the time of his arrest but the same was not considered. Subsequently, on his approach Wing Commander Incharge of his Headquarters issued a letter, dated 17‑6‑1997, Annexure "C" to the petition addressed to S.S.P., Karachi‑West certifying that the weapon in question was handed over to the petitioner for self‑protection. It is further submitted that the trial Court had sent this letter to the relevant quarters for verification which was duly verified vide letter, dated 12th August, 1997 Annexure "D" to the petition, yet the petitioner's prayer for his acquittal was declined

5. The question for consideration in this petition is whether trial of the petitioner before the Special Court on the aforementioned charge amounts to a gross abuse of process of Court and whether it would be just, proper and expedient in the larger interests of justice to quash the proceeding in order to secure the ends of justice in the` pending case. It may be pertinent to point out that official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed and there is always a presumption of correctness in favour of such acts thus it is hard to accept at this stage that the petitioner had submitted a valid Pass for going armed with the weapon in question at the time of his arrest or that the Police Officer Incharge of the police party refused to take into consideration the said pass or that it was made to disappear for ulterior reasons. In case, the petitioner was carrying the weapon under a lawful authority and a valid pass it would be open to him to produce such evidence before the Trial Court and prove the letters relied upon by him in support of this petition. As the Trial Court has declined to accept such document as sufficient and adequate for warranting a finding at this stage of the case that the trial would not entail in conviction of the petitioner it is hardly possible to differ with this view. Needless to point out the petitioner is on bail and stated to be on duty and if that be so, no harassment or humiliation is being caused to him merely by standing trial before a competent Court of law. In case he is able to convince the conscience of the Trial Court that he was carrying an arm under a lawful authority there would be hardly any occasion for directing quashment of the proceedings at this stage which involve deeper examination of factual aspects of the case.

6. It may further be observed that section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. does not confer any additional powers on the High Court and it merely reserves the powers already possessed. Such powers are required to be exercised in exceptional cases where the Court is satisfied that the continuation of proceedings complained of would amount to a gross abuse of process of Court or that it is absolutely necessary to exercise inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. To our mind 8 no such case has been made out, in the circumstances. To the contrary, quashment of proceedings at this stage may amount to abuse of process of this Court, which must be avoided under all circumstances.

7. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, we are not satisfied with the merits of this petition, which is accordingly dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations. Trial Court shall take steps for final decision of the case with expedition. H.B.T./M‑269/K Petition dismissed.