1997 PLP 1696 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1696 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwan Das and Amanullah Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1696 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1696 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Rana Bhagwan Das and Amanullah Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1696 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Criminal procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561‑A‑‑‑Transfer of case from Special Court to ordinary Court ‑‑‑Sten‑gun allegedly recovered from the possession of accused did not fall within the ambit of the weapons of the prohibited bore described in the Schedule attached to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 and he, therefore, could not be lawfully tried by the Special Court under the said Act for want of jurisdiction‑‑ Case pending against accused before the Special Court was consequently sent back to the Court of Magistrate for trial. Ghulam Moeenuddin Baloch for Applicant. Mukhtar Khanzada for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Moeenuddin Baloch for Applicant. Mukhtar Khanzada for the State. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Application the applicant who is facing trial in Special Case No.85 of 1996 before S.T.A. Court No‑1, Hyderabad seeks a direction that the case may be sent back for trial to the ordinary Court for the reasons that the stengun allegedly recovered from his possession does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory weapons shown in the Schedule attached to the S.T.A. Act, 1975. The petitioner was arrested by a police party of Seri Pir Police Station on 29‑3‑1995 for being found to be in possession of a stengun. He was prosecuted before the Court of learned IVth Extra‑Joint Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad who was pleased to release him on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 vide order, dated 11‑4‑1995. The case seems to have been returned to local police for submission of challan before Special Court. Consequently presiding officer of the S.T.A. Court remanded the petitioner to custody. The petitioner moved an application for release on bail which was turned down by the S.T.A. Court vide order, dated 22‑5‑1996. He then approached the same Court for his acquittal under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. for want of jurisdiction but his prayer did not find favour with the S.T.A. Court hence the present application. At the Bar learned State Counsel candidly and rightly so conceded that for the weapon allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant he could not be lawfully tried by the Special Court under the provisions of S.T.A. Act. According to learned State Counsel a stengun does not fall within the ambit of weapons of prohibitory bore described in the Schedule attached to the S.T.A. Act. Even learned counsel for the applicant has produced a copy of the order passed by the predecessor of the present incumbent in S.T.A. Court in Special Case No.24 of 1995 taking this view and directing the return of the challan for submission before the ordinary Court of law. In view of what has been stated above in the exercise of our jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. we are of the considered view that S.T.A. Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial against the applicant and, therefore, his case stands transferred to the Court of IVth. Extra‑Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M., Hyderabad whey, the case was already pending. The application is allowed in the circumstances. It may be pointed out that the main application is fixed for Katcha Peshi but since we have heard counsel for the parties on merits we are finally disposing of the same. N.H.Q./M‑120/K Petition allowed.