P L D 2002 Karachi 102 (PLP)
SHAMAS‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2002 Karachi 102 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ata‑ur‑Rehman, J |
| Parties | SHAMAS‑‑‑Applicant 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 2002 Karachi 102 (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 2002 Karachi 102 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ata‑ur‑Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2002 Karachi 102 (PLP) (SHAMAS‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Surrender of Illicit Arms Act (XXI of 1991), Ss. 1(3) 4, 6 & 7(c)‑‑‑Bail, grant of ‑‑‑Authority though had issued a notification under S.1(3) of Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 whereby Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 had been enforced in the Province, but had not issued notification under, S.4 of the said Act disclosing the specific time and the authority on which and before whom the illicit arms were to be surrendered .which notification was a must to invoke provisions of S.7(c) of said Act whereunder case was registered against the accused‑‑‑In absence of notification under S. 4 and wide publicity as envisaged in S. 6 of the Act, no case under S.7(c) could be registered against the accused ‑‑‑F.I.Rs. in cases registered under S.7(c) which were without force of law, were to be treated as registered under provisions of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 and were to be tried by the Courts, having jurisdiction in the matter‑‑‑Sessions Courts, having no jurisdiction to try the cases, orders passed by them on the bail application were set aside‑‑‑Accused could apply for bail by filing fresh application before the respective Trial Courts for seeking relief. Hussain Ahmed v. The State 1992 MLD 1618 ref. Sobraj L.P. for Applicant (in Cr.B.As. Nos. 561 and 605 of 2001). Ali Nawaz Ghangliro for Applicant (in Cr.B.As. Nos.590, 591, 592 and 593 of 2001). Khaiid Hussain Shahani for Applicant (in Cr.B.As. Nos.572, 573, 597 and 603 of 2001). . Muhammad Bachal Tunio, Addl. A.‑G., Ali Azhar Tunio, Asstt, A.‑G. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State. Altaf Hussain Surahio for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(b) ......... ....?.???????? (c) in respect of illicit arms defined in sub‑clause (v) of clause (a) of section 2, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than three years, having regard to the antecedents of the accused. (2) ....?.??????????. (3) ....?.??????????.
3. A perusal of the above provisions shows that in first step the Federal Government is to issue a notification under subsection (3) of section 1 enforcing the Act in a province on a specific date. This step has been taken and the Federal Government by Notification No. 108 (KE) 2001 dated 15th June, 2001 enforced the Act in Province of Sindh with effect from 20‑6‑2001. The notification is reproduced hereunder: (Interior Division). Islamabad, the 15th June, 2001 S.R.0.108(KE)2001 In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of section 1 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 (XXI of 1991) the Federal Government on the recommendation of the respective Provincial Government, is pleased to appoint the dates specified in column (3) of the table below to be the dates on which the said Act shall come into force in the areas specified in column (2) thereof. 270 THE GAZETTE OF PAKISTAN EXTRA. S/NO: Area????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Dates on which Act XXI 1991 ??????????? shall come into force 2....?.??????????. 3 ....?.??????????. 4.???????? The whole of the Province 20th June, 2001. ??????????? of Sindh. 5. ??????????????????????? AMIR KHAN WAZIR ??????????????????????? Section Officer (Arms)."
4. Next step for the Federal Government is to issue Notification under section 4 of the Act disclosing the specific time and the authority on which and before whom the illicit arms are to be surrendered. And in the last step under section 6 wide publicity of the ingredients of the notification under section 4 is to be made by the Federal Government. After the above is done only then provision of section 7(c) of the Act can be invoked.
5. During the hearing of these applications it was enquired from the Additional Advocate‑General as to whether a Notification under section 4 has been issued. He took time to seek instructions. This was necessitated as the Police started taking actions .with effect from 20th June, 2001, a date which pertains to the notification under section 1(3) whereby the Act was made enforceable in the Province of Sindh.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State informed the Court that they had by letter dated 14th of September, 2001 to the Secretary Law, Province of Sindh ascertained about the notification under section 4 and he orally informed them that no such Notification is available with his department. On enquiry, my learned brother Fakir Muhammad Khokhar, J. the Secretary of Law, Ministry of Justice, Government of Pakistan, I Islamabad also confirmed the non‑issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act.
7. The sum up is that in the absence of a Notification under section 4 and wide publicity as envisaged in section 6 no case under section 7 of the Act can be registered against the applicants. It appears that the Government functionaries treated the Notification No. 108(KE) 2001 dated 15th June, issued under section 1(3) of the Act as a Notification under section 4 and registered cases under section 7(c) with effect from 20th June, 2001. The maximum sentence under section 7(c) is 14 years therefore, the challans were submitted by the police in the Court of Sessions.
8. The F.I.Rs. in these cases, under section 7(c) of Act are therefore, without force of law. The F.I.Rs, however, be treated as registered under the provisions of Arms Ordinance, 1965 and to or tried by the Courts having jurisdiction therefor. The Sessions Courts have no jurisdiction to try, these matters therefore, orders passed by them on the bail applications are set aside. Applicants may apply for bail by filing fresh applications before the respective trial Courts for seeking relief. The R & Ps of these cases pending, with the Courts of Sessions are to be sent to the Courts of respective jurisdiction. The case of Hussain Ahmed v. The State (1992 M L D 1618) is referred. H. B. T./S‑167/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.