1991 PCr (PLP)
ABDUL HAMID — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), (b) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PCr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), (b) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PCr (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 PCr (PLP) (ABDUL HAMID — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Dagger was allegedly recovered from accused for which he was tried by Additional Sessions Judge
Trial was without jurisdiction
Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances.
S. 13
Accused had faced ordeal of protracted trial and had suffered much --Remand of case for retrial was not considered proper in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(b) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)
S. 13
Accused had faced ordeal of protracted trial and had suffered much --Remand of case for retrial was not considered proper in circumstances. Nemo for Appellant. Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State: Date of hearing: 6th May, 1991. Abdul Hamid appellant was tried for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance for being in possession of a double-edged dagger on 15-9-1983 at 4-30 p.m. when he was produced before the police in connection with a case under section 377, P.P.C. He was charged, tried therefor and convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide the impugned judgment dated 27-2-1986. He was sentenced to 6 months` R.I., which was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in the connected case under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 377, P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the State has frankly conceded that for the offence under the Arms Ordinance the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction, it was rather Magistrate First Class who had the jurisdiction. The trial being without jurisdiction the conviction and the sentence are hereby set aside and the appeal is accepted .
3. Since much time has passed and the appellant has already undergone the ordeal of trial, it is not considered proper to remand the case for trial. If any sentence was required the appellant has already suffered much. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. SA./A-1292/L Appeal accepted.