P L D 1994 Peshawar 20 (PLP)
ZAHIDULIAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1994 Peshawar 20 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, CJ |
| Parties | ZAHIDULIAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Peshawar 20 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Peshawar 20 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Peshawar 20 (PLP) (ZAHIDULIAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Jamshaid Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Offence was not punishable with imprisonment for life or up to ten years and accused had succeeded in making out an arguable case for his bail by producing a photostat copy of his arm's licence‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Nasirul Mulk, A.‑G. for the State,
Judgment & Decree
A klashnikov rifle along 120 rounds were recovered from the accused petitioner and on further search Charas weighing 10 grams was also recovered that consequently a case was registered against him under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and 13 A.O. The learned Sessions Judge, sitting in his capacity as a Special Court refused him a bail under observations that he was connected with the commission of a scheduled offence and that the offence was apparently punishable with imprisonment up to fourteen years. At the hearing the learned Advocate‑General conceded the point that Ordinance NO.XVII of 1988, adding offences punishable under sections 13‑A and 13‑B of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 to the schedule of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, has since expired. He pointed out that there have been made amendments by Act No.V of 1990 in the Act XV of. 1975 whereunder any offence punishable under sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 relating to Cannon, Grenade, Bomb or Rocket or a light or a heavy automatic or semi‑automatic weapon such as klashnikov has also been made a scheduled offence. Section 8 of the Arms Ordinance prohibits going armed without licence and that contravention thereof has been made punishable under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance up to seven years. He contended that prima facie accused petitioner was involved in commission of a scheduled offence and his release on bail was not justified. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner produced photostat copy of the licence in the name of the accused‑petitioner in .respect of a‑klashnikov rifle and contended that the weapon recovered from the accused was a licensed one. This Court considers that on one hand it is not an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or up to 10 years and on the other hand accused petitioner has succeeded to make out an arguable case for his bail by A producing a photostat copy of his‑ arms licence. Accused‑petitioner is, therefore, released on bail provided he furnishes bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty A Magistrate. N.H.Q./1502/P Bail allowed.