1974 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑ S. 412‑Accused pleading guilty and no illegality shown in conduct of trial‑Mere fact of accused being a simple man, a religious maniac and not aware of law with regard to possession of sword, held, cannot absolve him of liability‑Ignorance of law no excuse maintained‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13‑D. M. M. Pirzada for Applicant. Petitioner Syed Ahmed Mustafa was tried for an offence under section 13‑D of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance by the learned A. C. M. Court. No. 5, Karachi, for being illegally in possession of an unlicensed sword and was convicted and sentenced to suffer six months' R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default suffer R. I. for a further period of three months, by his order dated 17‑10‑1972.

2. The undisputed facts in this case are that the petitioner was found in possession of a sword, while he was going in a rickshaw by the Military Personnel, who were on duty in Liaquatabad during the recent disturbances. He was taken to the police station along with the sword and P. W. 1 Abdul Sattar is the mashir of the recovery of the weapon. The petitioner in his statement has admitted the possession of the sword without licence and pleaded guilty on that score. However, he stated that he was unaware of the fact that any licence was required for such weapon. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, by his order dated 21‑10‑1972 on the ground that no appeal lies in the case when the accused is convicted on a plea guilty, under section 412, Cr. P. C. and no illegality has been shown in the trial of the case.

3. I have heard Mr. M. M. Pirzada, Advocate for the petitioner. H has failed to show me any illegality in the trial so as to interfere with the sentence awarded to the petitioner. All he stated was that the Courts below should have probed into the mental condition and should have considered that he was a religious maniac, whose confinement in jail would not improve the society nor would it have a deterrent effect on him, and that the petitioner is a man who engages himself in teaching of Islam and the sentence awarded to him is excessive. He argued that the petitioner is a simple person was not aware that a licence was required for the sword and that he admitted possession of the sword before the Courts below. I am afraid not see any force in these arguments. Ignorance of law is no excuse and the petitioner has pleaded guilty and no illegality in the trial or of the sentence has been shown to me. Even otherwise, I do not see any mitigating circum stance to interfere with the orders of the Courts below.

4. The result is, I see no force in this revision application, which is hereby dismissed in limine. Application dismissed.