1987 PLP 817 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AMIR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 817 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Lehrasap Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 817 (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 1987 PLP 817 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Lehrasap Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 817 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AMIR — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yamin for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.13, 14 & 14-A [as inserted by Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance (XXI of 1976)]--Carrying gun and live cartridges without licence--Offence allegedly taking place in 1981 (long after coming into force of amending Ordinance of 1976) was exclusively triable by Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction in area--Trial of such offence by Sessions Judge, held, was coram non judice and conviction and sentence passed by him was a nullity in the eye of law--Case not remanded to Magistrate First Class concerned in view of fact that occurrence having taken place as far back as 1980, appellant had already suffered agony of protracted trial--Appeal accepted and conviction and sentence of appellant set aside. Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
LEHRASAP KHAN, J.--The appellant Muhammad Amir has been convicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, vide his judgment dated 27-4-1983, under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (Ordinance XX of 1965) and sentenced to three years' R.I. He has challenged his conviction and sentence through the present appeal.
2. It is alleged that during the investigation of the main murder case under section 302/148/149/109 PPC arising out of F.I.R. No.11 dated 27-3-1981, the appellant was arrested while carrying gun P.1 and three live cartridges P.2/1-3, for which he did not possess any licence. The alleged recovery allegedly took place on 8-4-1981.
3. It is noteworthy that Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, has been amended by the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance 1976 (Ordinance XXI of 1976). Through the amendment so brought about in the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, section 14-A, has been added which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), an offence punishable under section 13 or section 14, shall be triable by a Magistrate of the first class. Subsection (2) of section 14-A, so added further provides that all cases relating to offences triable by a Magistrate of the first class under subsection (1) and pending in a Court of Session immediately before the commencement of the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, in which the charge had not been framed shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to the Court of the Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction over such cases. It is noteworthy that the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976 (Ordinance XXI of 1976) was promulgated on 25th May, 1976 and it came into force at once.
4. As already stated, in the present case the offence allegedly took place in 1981 i.e. long after the coming into force of the amendment brought about by the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance 1976. The offence was, therefore, exclusively triable by the Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in the area. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction in the matter. Trial by him is, therefore, coram non judice and the conviction and sentence passed by him is thus a nullity in the eye of law.
5. Ordinarily we would have remanded this case to the Court of the learned Magistrate First Class having jurisdiction in the area for re-trial, but we do not deem this course to be expedient in view of the fact that the occurrence took place as back as 1980 and the appellant has already suffered the agony or protracted murder trial as also the trial in this case.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. S.Q./M-263/L Appeal accepted.