1989 PLP 2922 (MLD)
TASLEEM AHMAD alias PAPPU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2922 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | TASLEEM AHMAD alias PAPPU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2922 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2922 (MLD)?
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 PLP 2922 (MLD) (TASLEEM AHMAD alias PAPPU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sarfraz Khan Saifi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-B--Bail--Accused was apprehended while going armed with a .7 mm rifle--Offence fell within the prohibitory clause as .7 mm rifle was covered by Cl.(a) of S.13-B of the Ordinance--Bail was refused in circumstances. Riaz Ali Abbasi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Tasleem Ahmad alias Pappu petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
2. The F.I.R. version is that on 6-2-1989 S.H.O., Police Station 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 .22 live bullets and the same was taken into possession by the police.
3. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the recovery memo to contend that the weapon allegedly recovered from the petitioner was not a Kalashnikov but a .7 mm rifle. He submits that the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause. The learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that the offence falls under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance which is punishable with imprisonment upto ten years, therefore, no ground for the grant of bail is made out.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar in the light of material available on the record. In the F.I.R. it has been stated that a Kalashnikof was recovered from the petitioner that, according to memo. of recovery, Kalashnikof 14 MM7 was recovered. On inquiry, the Investigating Officer states that actually it was a .7 mm rifle having the shape of a kalashnikov. According to him, the bullets recovered from its megazine were of .7 mm rifle. Ordinance XX of 1965 has single 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 extend to ten years and shall not be less than three years and fine." The petitioner was apprehended when he was going armed with a .7 mm rifle. This weapon is covered by clause (a) of section 13-B. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause. I am, therefore, not inclined to admit him to bail. The petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./T-60/L Bail refused.