1989 P Cr (PLP)
DOST MUHAMMAD alias DOSA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | DOST MUHAMMAD alias DOSA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (DOST MUHAMMAD alias DOSA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sarfraz Khan Saifi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (v of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497(1)‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑B‑‑Bail‑‑Accused was apprehended when he was going. Armed with a Kalashnikov‑ Evidence available on record prima facie linked hum with the offence punishable under newly inserted S.13‑B of Arms Ordinance, which falls within the prohibitory clause‑‑Bail, was refused in circumstances. Riaz Ali Abbasi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Riaz Ali Abbasi for the State. Dost Muhammad petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965.
2. The F.I.R. version is that on 6‑2‑1989 S.H.O. P.S. Old Anarkali, Lahore, received secret information that Abdul Wadood Khan alias Wadoodi Pathan and nine others, armed with fire‑arms, were going in a pick‑up to commit a dacoity. He organised a raiding party and checked the pick‑up in Chowk Mclegan‑Bank Road. The petitioner was found carrying a Kalashnikov loaded with 25 live bullets and the police took the same into possession.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The learned State counsel on the other hand submits that the offence falls under section 13‑B of the Arms Ordinance, which is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years, therefore, offence falls within the prohibitory clause. 4. 1 have considered the submissions made at the Bar. Ordinance XX of 1965 has since been amended by Ordinance XVI of 1988 and two new sections 13‑A and 13‑B have been inserted therein. Section 13‑B reads as under:‑ Whoever‑‑ (a) goes armed with a cannon, grenade, bomb, rocket or a light or heavy automatic or semi‑automatic weapon, such as a Kalashnikov, a G‑III rifle or any other type of assault rifle, in contravention of the provisions of section 8; or (b) has in his possession or under his control any of the arms or weapons referred to in clause (a) or ammunition which can be fired from such weapon, in contravention of section 9, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to ten years and shall not be less than three years and fine. The petitioner was apprehended when he was going armed with a Kalashnikov. The evidence available on the record prima facie links him with the offence under section 13‑B which falls within the prohibitory clause. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./D‑40/L Petition dismissed. .