Possessing unlicensed arms

One unlicensed pistol of .30-bore with magazine containing three live bullets was recovered from the possession of accused

Admittedly, the Investigating Officer had received the case property i.e. .30 bore T.T. pistol alongwith FIR and other documents on 1.4.2014

However, Investigating Officer sent the allegedly recovered firearm weapon on 22.04.2014 as was evident from the Forensic Science Laboratory Report

Although, the Investigating Officer had tried to fulfil that lacuna by deposing, that the case property was lying in malkhana before sending it to ballistic expert, however, neither any roznamcha entry/document to substantiate such assertion had been produced by Investigating Officer, nor the WPC, whom he allegedly handed over the case property and who allegedly sent the same to ballistic expert, hadbeen examined before the Trial Court

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

One unlicensed pistol of .30-bore with magazine containing three live bullets was recovered from the possession of accused

Despite the fact that the place of arrest and alleged recovery of firearm weapon was a chowk situated on a busy road, no private/independent person of the locality was associated to act as mashir of arrest and recovery

Although, the complainant and mashir had deposed that complainant tried to associate private person as mashir but there was no private person available at the place and time of alleged incident

Once having admitted that bungalows were situated near the place of incident and that vehicles were coming and going on the road and further that shops of different items were situated at nearby road, so also that at a distance of only half kilometer chowk was situated, then it was incumbent upon the police to make efforts to find private persons from such a place

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that one 30-bore T.T. pistol loaded with magazine containing one live round was recovered from the accused and one 30-bore T.T. pistol loaded with magazine containing two live rounds was recovered from his companion

Accused persons did not produce license of weapons, hence the FIRs

Prosecution had examined three witnesses including complainant in order to establish accusation against accused

Record showed that incident took place in evening time and place of incident was a thickly populated area, despite the said fact, police did not associate any independent/private person of the locality to witness the recovery proceedings

Provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C. were mandatory in nature and could not be ignored without justification

Police was duty bound to prefer private witness if available at the spot to maintain transparency and fairness of the alleged recovery

Novalid reason or plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution for non-association of independent witnesses by the police

Record transpired that one 30-bore T.T. pistol without number with one live bullet was recovered from the possession of accused in presence of mashirs, whereas, Forensic Science Laboratory Report showed that the said pistol had rubbed number

First Information Report was registered on 12-11-2015 at 7.55 p.m., while Investigating Officer deposed in his cross-examination that he had received the case for investigation on 12-11-2015 at 8.00 a.m. it did not appeal to a prudent mind as to how the investigation papers were received by the Investigating Officer prior to the incident

False implication of the accused in the case could not be ruled out in circumstances

There were number of infirmities/lacunas which had created serious doubts in the prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Prosecution case was that one .30-bore pistol along with magazine containing two live bullets was recovered from the accused

Accused failed to produce licence of weapon, hence the FIR

Prosecution, in order to establish accusation against accused, had examined three witnesses including complainant

Record showed that police had seen two accused persons in suspicious condition and one accused was apprehended by the police, while the other fled away

Despite the fact that police party was armed with sophisticated weapons second accused fled away easily from the spot

Said fact created doubt in the prosecution case

Evidence of prosecution witnesses showed that place of incident from where accused was arrested was thickly populated area surrounded by houses and shops, but complainant did not associate any independent person of the locality to witness the event

No plausible explanation was offered by the prosecution as to why police did not associate any independent person from the place of incident to witness the arrest and recovery proceedings

Provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C. were mandatory in nature and could not be ignored without any proper justification

Police was duty bound to prefer a private witness if available at the spot to maintain transparency and fairness of the alleged recovery

No valid reason or plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution in that regard

False implication of accused, in circumstances, could not be ruled out

Evidence of prosecution witnesses was contradictory on material particulars, which changed the entire complexion of the case

Reliance could not be placed on the contradictory evidence for maintaining the conviction

Weapon of offence, allegedly recovered from the accused on 15-11-2017, was received in the office of Forensic Division on 17-11-2017 after the delay of about two days and pistol and bullets remained in whose custody during the intervening period had not been explained by the prosecution

No official from the Forensic Division had been examined

Mashirnama of arrest and recovery revealed that one .30-bore pistol along with magazine containing two live bullets, bearing No. PAK2000 AAR Pec CAL-30 was allegedly recovered from the accused, however, Forensic Science Laboratory Report showed one .30-bore pistol No. PK2000 with magazine marked/signed and two .30-bore live cartridges, which number was quite different

No reliance, in circumstances, could be placed on Forensic Science Laboratory Report to maintain the conviction of the accused

Circumstances established that, in the present case, there were number of infirmities/lacunas, which had created serious doubts benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Witnesses (police officials) had deposed that they did not make any effort to call for independent witnesses though the place of incident was located in a populated area and the otaq surrounded by houses

Complainant had deposed in his examination-in-chief that he did not remember the name of SHO who followed the accused that escaped on foot

Such statement was hostile to the prosecution case and raised further doubt as to the statement of the complainant as a whole

Contradictions in depositions of witnesses existed about the time of occurrence; in completion of formalities and about the time of reaching back to the police station

Such circumstances raised doubts in the prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused

Petition was allowed and accused were acquitted.

Prosecution case was that .30-bore pistol along with three live bullets was recovered from the accused to which he could not produce the license, hence the FIR

Record showed that it was the case of spy information, despite that fact complainant did not bother to associate with him any independent person of the locality from the place of information or place of incident

No valid reason or plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution for non-association of independent witnesses by the police when independent people were available at the place of recovery, which was a thickly populated area

False implication of the accused, in the present case, could not be ruled out in circumstances

Mashirnama of arrest and recovery showed that one .30-bore pistol without number loaded with three live bullets, was recovered from the possession of the accused in presence of mashirs

One of the mashirs in his evidence had not disclosed the proper description of the alleged weapon

Said fact was also not mentioned in the Forensic Science Laboratory report

Memo. of arrest and recovery showed that the weapon allegedly recovered from the accused was without number, but Forensic Science Laboratory report showed that the number was rubbed

Mashirnama of arrest and recovery, showed that body of the alleged recovered weapon had the words "New Border CAL 30 Mouser", marked on the same, but those wordings were not mentioned in the Forensic Science Laboratory report

Record transpired that alleged weapon was received in the Office of the Forensic Agency after the delay of about five days for which no explanation had been furnished by the prosecution

Pistol and bullets were retained or kept by whom during the said intervening period had not been explained

If the case property was lying in the Malkhana, no report/entry of the Malkhana had been produced to corroborate the same

No official from Forensic Agency had been examined in the case

No reliance could safely be placed on Forensic Science Laboratory report for conviction of the accused on the basis of contradictory evidence

Admittedly, there were number of infirmities/ lacunae, which had created serious doubt in the prosecution case

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted in circumstances, by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Accused was arrested by the police in crime registered under Ss. 392 & 34, P.P.C. and an unlicensed 30 bore pistol along with loaded magazine with three rounds without number along with three mobile phones, one SIM and Rs. 4000 was recovered from his possession in presence of mashirs

Joint mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared on the spot in both crimes, but Trial Court on the basis of same mashirnama acquitted accused person in the main case

Said judgment was not challenged by the prosecution before appellate forum, as such, it attained finality

First Information Report revealed that one unlicensed .30 bore pistol along with loaded magazine with three rounds without number was recovered from the possession of accused, but in the memo of arrest and recovery, one unlicensed .30 bore pistol along with loaded magazine with three rounds without number, on the body of which 'CAL 30 Mouser made of China by Norinco' was written

Said description was not mentioned in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)

Recovery witness stated in his cross-examination that no incriminating material was recovered from the possession of accused in his presence

Complainant of the case deposed that during search of accused, he did not recover any incriminating article rather complainant of the main case/recovery witness had brought the pistol with him and had disclosed that it was recovered from the possession of accused

Weapon allegedly recovered from the accused was without number, but FSL report showed that number of weapon was rubbed

No official from forensic division was examined in the case

No reliance could safely be placed on the FSL report for conviction of the accused on the basis of contradictory evidence

Prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was set aside, in circumstances. [Paras. 10, 11, 12 & 14 of the judgment]

Record showed that Kalashnikov and bullets allegedly recovered from the accused were neither sealed nor sent to the Ballistic Expert for verification as to whether the same was in working condition

No report in that regard had been produced in evidence

Complainant/police party left police station through roznamcha entry, but original departure and arrival entries had not been produced in support of departure from police station, which cast serious doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution case

Record reflected that the place of recovery was protective Band, open place, hence, it could not be said that it was in exclusive possession of the accused

Evidence of the prosecution witnesses showed that there were material contradictions and lacunae

Accused and case property were not shown to the complainant at the time of his examination in the court for identification

Complainant had deposed that the memo of recovery was prepared by police constable/mashir but the said mashir had deposed that memo was prepared by complainant

Mashir had deposed that his signature was obtained on memo of recovery at police station

Said discrepancies and lacunae could not be ignored while deciding the case, on the basis whereof no conviction could be recorded

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Prosecution case was that accused was arrested in a case punishable under Ss. 401, 398 & 341, P.P.C. and one .32-bore pistol loaded with six bullets in magazine was recovered for which he could not produce license

Record showed that the accused had been acquitted from the main case in which same witnesses were examined by the prosecution but the Trial Court convicted the accused in off shoot case

Allegedly, the recovered pistol and bullets were sealed at spot and were sent to Ballistic Expert for report after four days but the report revealed that the case property was received in the office on fifth day and there was no explanation as to why the Police Constable kept it with him for one day

Prosecution did not produce the said Constable to explain the position

Record did not show that the case property was de-sealed in court and was shown to the prosecution witnesses or exhibited in evidence

Record transpired that there were material contradictions in evidence of eye-witnesses which could not be ignored while deciding the case

Said defects and contradictions in evidence created doubt in prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Prosecution case was that 30-bore pistol along with magazine and three cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused and he could not produce any license or permit in respect of said pistol

Record showed that complainant-Police Officer received spy information that proclaimed offender/present accused was present near a petrol pump

Police party proceeded to the spot and arrested the accused and recovered the pistol with magazine and three cartridges

Recovery of pistol was made near the petrol pump and no independent or impartial witness had been associated with the recovery

Accused did not try to escape from the spot on seeing the police vehicle

Inference from the act of the accused, could be gathered that he might have surrendered himself to the local police and thereafter the alleged recovery of pistol might have been attributed to him being proclaimed offender

Recovery witness, during cross-examination, admitted that complainant did not give any instruction with regard to association of any independent or private witnesses with the recovery process

Investigating Officer admitted during cross-examination that in the site-plan there was a reference of the house of someone but the owner of said house had not been examined as witness during court proceedings

Statements of said witnesses had created a serious dent in the version of prosecution with regard to the alleged recovery

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to bring home charges against the accused for recovery of weapon etc.

Appeal was accepted and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Trial Court.

Such kind of evidence by itself was not sufficient to bring home the charges against the accused especially when the other material put-forward by the prosecution in respect of guilt of the accused had already been disbelieved.

Prosecution case was that one .30-bore pistol without number along with two live bullets was recovered from accused who failed to produce any license for the pistol

Trial Court sentenced the accused for two years, however, before implementing the sentence, his custody was handed over to the Probation Officer to be kept under his supervision for a period of two years being first offender, young and the only earning member of his family

Prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined three witnesses, the complainant, mashir of arrest and recovery and the Investigating Officer

All the witnesses had supported the case of prosecution on material points as their evidence could not be shattered during the cross-examination

Recovered pistol sent for forensic examination was found to be in working condition

Record showed some contradictions in the evidence brought on record as in the FIR, time of incident was mentioned as 1.30 p.m., whereas in mashirnama it was mentioned as 2.30 p.m., but so far as the date and manner of incident were concerned, there was no contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, therefore, the same could be ignored

Accused had taken the defence that he was involved in the case at the behest of someone, with whom he had some dispute over a plot of land, but neither he opted to record his statement on oath on that point nor examined any defence witness to support his stance

Record transpired that accused had remained involved in six other criminal cases, out of which one was pending, whereas in other cases, either he had been acquitted or proceedings had been stopped

Accused did not deny or challenge his criminal record during the proceedings of the appeal

Accused had himself disclosed his age as 45 years and businesses as profession, therefore, it could not be said that accused was of young age and the only bread earner of his family

Section 562, Cr.P.C. denoted that it could be applied in the offence which was punishable with imprisonment for not more than seven years, while in the present case, the offence was punishable upto fourteen years with fine, thus it was not covered by S. 562, Cr.P.C.

Circumstances established that reasons assigned in the judgment, were contrary to the facts on record and the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for handing over the custody of the accused to the Probation Officer were perverse, erroneous and illegal, therefore could not be sustained

Judgment of the Trial Court to the extent of convicting the accused under S. 23(1)(a) of the Act, awarding him sentence for a period of two years was maintained but set aside to the extent of handing over his custody to the Probation Officer

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Provision of Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 was a reformative measure and its object was to reclaim amateur offenders who, if spared the indignity of incarceration, could be usefully rehabilitated in the society

Accused, in the present case, was amateur and a novice offender, therefore it would be beneficial for him and the society alike to place him on probation

Accused was given under the supervision of Probation Officer for one year while maintaining his sentence

Accused being a Christian, he would perform the community service by participating in arrangements of 'Sunday Service of Worship' or 'Sunday Mass' in the church of his choice

Accused had to give assistance in cleaning and arranging the pews in the prayer hall and other ancillary work along with the regular staff and/or volunteers of the said church

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Prosecution case was that one .30-bore pistol with magazine and three live bullets was recovered from the possession of the accused

Record showed that prosecution had not examined the complainant, who had lodged FIR, but examined only two mashirs of arrest and recovery

Said witnesses had given contradictory statements in respect of time of lodging the FIR; the distance in-between the place of incident and police station and regarding preparation of memos. of arrest and recovery

Number of pistol recovered from the accused as per sketch was shown as A-9877 while the mashirnama of arrest and Forensic Science Laboratory Report showed the number as A-9811

One of the witnesses, who was among the raiding party of the police and had acted as mashir of arrest and recovery in the case was subsequently entrusted with the investigation of the case

Said act was against the spirit of law

Report of Forensic Science Laboratory showed that two .30-bore empties were sent for examination which did not match with the pistol allegedly recovered from the accused

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Trial Court.

Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, obstructing public servant to discharge public function, act of terrorism

Possessing unlicensed arms

Bail, grant of

Case of prosecution was that encounter had taken place in-between Police and accused; both were armed with deadly and sophisticated weapons, but none from both the sides had received any injury

Accused were armed with pistols and had fired from their weapons to kill the Police personnel

Police, however, arrested them without resistence

Application of S.324, P.P.C., was yet to be determined at the trial

Police had recovered empties of .30 bore pistols from the place of incident, but did not send the same to Forensic Laboratory along with recovered pistols for matching

All the prosecution witnesses being Police Officials, question of tampering with the prosecution evidence did not arise

Case had been challaned and accused was no more required for further investigation

Court in matter of bail, could not go beyond the facts of the case and had to restrict itself to the material placed by the prosecution

Tentative assessment was to be made by the Court and no deeper appreciation was allowed

Accused was in custody since last four months

Prima facie, case for bail having been made out in favour of accused, concession of bail was extended to accused, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that one unlicensed T.T. pistol of .30-bore with magazine containing two live cartridges was recovered from the possession of the accused

Record showed that prosecution had examined three witnesses in support of its case

All the witnesses had supported the case of prosecution on all material points

Prosecution witness, who was the one from whom on gun point, accused along with his other associates had robbed one mobile phone as well as one Than of cloth, which was lying in his office

Defence taken by the accused was that in-fact he was employee of the factory and due to some dispute over the salary, he had been involved in a false case

Said witness was cross-examined by the accused himself but no suggestion was put to him in respect of such evidence, thus it was clear that the allegations leveled in examination-in-chief against the accused connected him with the commission of crime remained unchallenged in the cross-examination

Same was the position with regard to the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, whose evidence could not be shattered in cross-examination on all material points

Admittedly, incident took place in day light and the accused was arrested soon after the incident of robbery, when he was trying to flee away

No enmity or ill will was alleged against the prosecution witnesses as to why they would involve the accused in the case

Recovered crime weapon was sent for examination and report showed that it was in working condition at the time of examination and was loaded with two .30-bore live cartridges

Circumstances established that prosecution had been able to prove the case against the accused, however, no other criminal record of accused was available

High Court in view of the young age of the accused, his record and conduct in jail, reduced his sentence from seven years to four years

Appeal was disposed of with said modification accordingly.

Record showed that accused had not put material questions to the prosecution witnesses, who were admittedly examined by the prosecution in absence of the defence counsel

Trial Court, in such a situation, was obliged to indulge itself during the course of cross-examination of the said prosecution witnesses so as to go at the truth of the matter and to arrive at proper conclusion

Trial Court had dismissed the application filed under S. 540, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-appellant, without considering such aspect of the case

Circumstances established that re-calling and re-examination of the said prosecution witnesses was essential to go at the truth of the matter

Appeal was allowed in circumstances by setting aside the conviction and sentence and case was remanded with the direction to decide afresh after giving full opportunity of cross-examination to the defence.

Prosecution case was that one 30-bore pistol without number, loaded with magazine along with four live bullets, was recovered from the possession of the accused

Accused failed to produce licence of the weapon

FIR was registered against accused

Record showed that case was based upon the evidence of three witnesses, complainant, mashir and Investigating Officer

Said witnesses had fully supported the case of prosecution and had deposed that accused was the same person who was apprehended by the police

Recovered pistol was sent for the examination and the Report of Forensic Science Laboratory showed that same was in working condition

Prosecution witnesses, who were natural witnesses of the incident, were subjected to cross-examination, and no enmity was alleged against them

No motive or any other cause to falsely implicate the accused was attributed to the prosecution witnesses

Evidence of prosecution witnesses appeared to be trustworthy

Record transpired that apart from the present case, accused was involved in two other cases registered under Ss. 392/397/34, P.P.C. and under S. 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, which reflected that the accused was, prima facie, a habitual offender

Accused, soon after his release on bail in the present case, was arrested in other cases

Prosecution had proved its case against the accused

Appeal was dismissed.

Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C., though were not attracted to the case of personal search of a person, but, where alleged recovery of pistol was made from accused omission to secure independent mashirs from the locality, was significant; and could not be brushed aside lightly

Material contradictions were noticed in the prosecution case

Pistol allegedly recovered from accused was without number/make in such kind of firearm could easily be foisted

Accused having claimed false implication, prosecution should have examined any person of the area to prove its case

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Material contradictions in the prosecution case had been dealt with by the Trial Court in a very casual manner

Several circumstances were available on record, which created serious doubts in the prosecution case

Benefit of doubt was extended to accused

Conviction and sentence recorded against accused, were set aside and he was released, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that pistol of .30-bore along with magazine containing four live rounds and cash Rs. 180 were recovered from the possession of accused

Complainant had alleged that private witnesses were available at the spot but no body was cited as witness of arrest and recovery of weapon

Mandatory provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been violated in the present case

Prosecution witness deposed that Rs. 180 were recovered from the possession of accused

Complainant remained silent regarding such recovery

Circumstances created doubt about the veracity of prosecution case regarding proceedings of recovery, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused

Accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Prosecution case was that pistol of .30-bore along with magazine containing four live rounds and cash Rs. 180 were recovered from the possession of accused

Prosecution had alleged that entry was made in daily diary of the police station vide which the police party left the police station for patrolling

Photo copy of the daily diary without signature and proper attestation was produced

Such photo copy of daily diary had no evidentiary value and could not be relied upon for corroborating the factum and purpose of departure of police party from police station equipped with the apparatus essentially required for sealing the alleged case property

Circumstances established that departure of police party from police station could not be assumed to have been proved beyond shadow of doubt

Police party failed to apprehend the other person who allegedly fell down along with accused owing to skidding of motorcycle on the evening of the incident

Such aspect of prosecution case was incomprehensible, thus rendered the alleged recovery of weapon doubtful, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused

Accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Two FIRs were lodged against accused and co-accused for alleged recovery of two weapons from their possession, but there was one joint Mushirnama (recovery memo) in respect of recovery and arrest of both the accused

Such Mushirnama was bad in the eyes of law

Bail was allowed to accused and co-accused, in circumstances.

When the police officer was to charge a person for an offence, carrying punishment in shape of detention, it was incumbent upon the police officer to associate independent person for witnessing the recovery proceedings

Police had failed to do so

Case of accused was of further inquiry

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Unlicensed pistol was allegedly recovered from accused during investigation, which was not used in the commission of main offence

Accused had been granted bail in main case

Alleged recovery of pistol was yet to be proved by the prosecution at the time of trial

Case required further inquiry

Bail was granted accordingly.

Bail was granted accordingly.

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Two FIRs were lodged for alleged recovery of two weapons from possession of two accused, but there was joint Mushirnama (recovery memo) in respect of recovery and arrest of both the accused

Such procedure had no legal effect in the eye of law

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court for four years and fine of Rs. 10,000 was sought to be suspended on the ground that sentence was short one, and disposal of revision petition would take some time

Accused had prayed for grant of bail while suspending the sentence

Keeping in view the short sentence, and that disposal of revision petition could take some time, evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and judgment of the Trial Court, were still to be evaluated, sentence awarded to accused was suspended.

Trial Court did not base the impugned order on any prosecution evidence and instead based the same on compromise that accused effected with the legal heirs of deceased and injured persons

Two occurrences were reported through two different FIRs., which were quite distinct and different in nature

Many offences were not compoundable

Court was passionate in accepting the compromise and acquitted accused and his co-accused, even from the offences which were not compoundable

Compromise in the main occurrence was not a sufficient proof of guilt of accused

Trial Court had adopted his own style of convicting and sentencing accused; instead of following the relevant law of evidence; which mandatorily required recording of prosecution evidence for basing all judgment/orders of conviction

Order of conviction/ sentence, without recording evidence or admission of accused, was a display of alarming attitude of Judicial Officer

Appeal was allowed holding that impugned order was fit to be set aside to the extent of said accused.

Challan of the case was submitted but Judicial Magistrate, instead of transmitting the challan of the case to the Sessions Judge/Trial Court, retained the same, and on receiving application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C., acquitted accused through impugned order

Validity

Magistrate under S.14-A of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, had jurisdiction to try the offences punishable under Ss.13 & 14 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, except the offences referred in the Proviso to S.13 of the Ordinance

Kalashnikov, which was an automatic weapon, fell within the proviso to S. 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965

Magistrate, in circumstances, had no jurisdiction to try the same

Trial and proceedings conducted by the Magistrate, were 'coram non judice'

Subject to subsection (2) of S. 190, Cr.P.C., Judicial Magistrate was bound to send the case to the Court of Session for trial without any evidence

Impugned order of acquittal of accused, did not contain any reason or ground for the same

Magistrate, did not even mention the detailed facts of the case for forming an opinion

Order of the Magistrate was not at all a speaking order which in no manner could be called 'judicial order within the parameters of law'

Order in question was passed in hasty manner, without adhering to the relevant provisions of law

Impugned order being sketchy, non-speaking and devoid of reason assessed without jurisdiction, was set aside and case was remanded to Judicial Magistrate of its onward transmission to the concerned Sessions Judge for de novo trial.

Accused was not nominated in the FIR and was involved in the case on the statement of co-accused, who was nominated by the complainant in his supplementary statement

Accused had already been acquitted from the charge in the case

Mere absconsion of accused, could not be a valid ground for refusal of bail to him, if otherwise, he had a case for bail on merits

Material, collected in the case, was not sufficient to prima facie show, that accused had committed alleged offence

Guilt of accused needing further probe, his case called for further inquiry

Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.

Due to heavy backlog of cases pending with the court, final hearing of appeal and its decision, was not in sight in near future

Application for suspension of sentence, was allowed, and sentence awarded to accused was suspended during pendency of main appeal; and accused was directed to be released on bail, in circumstances.

Such fundamental right of accused having been violated, impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, suffered from infirmity which could not be sustained

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused under impugned judgment, were set aside, and case was remanded to the Trial Court for retrial after affording opportunity of hearing to parties, and to decide the case afresh strictly on merits in accordance with law.

Sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court for two years and fine of Rs.20,000 was sought to be suspended on the ground that sentence was short one, and disposal of appeal would take some time

Accused had prayed for grant of bail while suspending the sentence

Keeping in view the short sentence, and that disposal of appeal could take some time and that evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and observation of the Trial Court, were still to be re-appreciated and re-evaluated, sentence awarded to accused was sus-pended, and accused was released on bail, in circumstances.

Accused, was not previously convicted, or was a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal; mere registration of criminal cases against him, was no proof of his being habitual offender; unless he was found guilty after the trial

No private mashir of the recovery of the weapon from accused was on record

Final challan had been submitted by the prosecution with the Trial Court; and accused had been committed to judicial custody

Accused, in circumstances, was no more required by the prosecution for investigation

Lesser punishment under S.23(1)A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, had been left at the discretion of the court, and maximum punishment was imprisonment for 14 years

Since the lesser punishment was not 10 years in the case, offence against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Case against accused being that of further inquiry he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

One pistol 30 bore, without number, with magazine and five bullets, were allegedly recovered from accused, in presence of mashirs, who were all Police Officials

Place of arrest of accused, had not been shown in the FIR

Said recovery in FIR, was not shown to have been sealed on the spot; where preparation of recovery memo had also not been shown

FIR, did not show that recovered pistol was loaded at the time of recovery

Names of Mashirs of recovery, were not in the FIR

Nothing was shown by the prosecution as to whether any attempt was made for associating private Mashirs

Offence against accused as per prosecution, fell under S.23(1)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, with regard to any firearm and ammunition, which had been defined in S.2(a)(b) respectively; and in the said provisions, the word "pistol" had not been used; whereas FIR showed recovery of pistol .30 bore

Bail, could not be withheld on the ground that offence fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., where there were reasons of further inquiry

Investigation was complete and challan submitted

Custody of accused was not required for further inquiry in respect of his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., accused was entitled for grant of bail, in circumstances.

Punishment of recovery of illicit arms, though had been enhanced through Sindh Arms Act, 2013; and the courts were required to be more careful in cases falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C., but in a situation, where the case of further inquiry was made out in favour of accused, then bail could not be withheld as a matter of policy

Preparation of Mashirnama of arrest and recovery was not mentioned

Even the names of Mashirs and the property which was recovered from the possession of accused which carried mark of identification had not been mentioned in the FIR, and had been shown without number

Property recovered was not sealed at Wardat

Rubbing number had been shown in the Forensic Science Laboratory report

Prosecution witnesses being Police Officials, there was no apprehension of tampering with the evidence

Accused was behind the bars since 7 months

Mere registration of other cases against accused, was not sufficient to hold any person as hard, dangerous and desperate criminal until or unless, it was brought on record that he had been convicted in any of the cases

Accused having been able to make out a case of further inquiry; and creating shadow of doubt, its benefit could be extended to accused even at bail stage

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Where the fate of an accused in the case of recovery of unlicensed arms, hinged upon the testimony of Police Officials alone, it was essential to find out if there was any possibility of securing independent person at the time of recovery

Conviction or acquittal of an accused, would depend upon the credibility of the witnesses; as assessed by the court, but where it was possible for the Police Officials to call independent witnesses to act as Mashir, but they deliberately avoided, the court had to be very careful in weighing such evidence

Judicial approach, had to be cautious in dealing such type of evidence.

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt for the reasons that despite contention of defence Counsel, arrival and Roznamcha entries, had not been produced in evidence, in order to satisfy the court that Police party had actually left at relevant time for patrolling

Non-production of departure and arrival entries in evidence would cut the roots of prosecution case

No private person of the locality had been examined in the present case

Accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., had raised plea that recovery had been foisted upon him for the political reasons

Such defence plea was rejected by the Trial Court for no obvious reasons; and dealt with by Trial Court in a very casual manner

Proper mode of appraisal of evidence in the case for the Trial Court, was to consider the reliability of each witness separately, then to examine the case as a whole, and also to examine the credibility of the prosecution witnesses in juxtaposition with each other

Mere fact that mashir of recovery, had no apparent reason to depose falsely against accused, was not sufficient to hold him trustworthy

Mere fact that prosecution witnesses, had no enmity with accused to implicate him falsely, would not render their evidence unanswerable

Truth or falsity of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, would largely depend upon the circumstances to accept the prosecution evidence, non-considering the circumstances, would be totally inconsistent with the safe administration of justice

Rubbed number pistol, recovered from the possession of accused, was sent to the Fire Arm Expert after 16 days of its recovery; and said inordinate delay had not been explained by the prosecution

Possibility could not be ruled out that it was foisted upon accused by the Police

Several circumstances existed which created serious doubt in the prosecution case

Conviction and sentence recorded against accused were set aside, extending him benefit of doubt and he was released, in circumstances.

No public person was associated to attest the recovery memo, despite, there were about 50/60 houses at the place where raid was conducted

Daily diary entry according to which complainant party had left for patrolling, had not been produced, which was mandatory

Non-sealing of allegedly recovered weapons and sending to Ballistic Expert for certificate to be functional had rendered the case doubtful

Circumstances as appearing in the matter, had created doubt as to the truthfulness of prosecution case

Prosecution having failed to prove the charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt, impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, was set aside; accused was acquitted of the charge, he being on bail his bail bond stood cancelled, and surety discharged, in circumstances.

Court while deciding application for bail was not to keep in view the maximum sentence provided by the statute but facts and circumstances of the case

Accused had been in jail from the day of his arrest and conclusion of trial was not in sight

Case against the accused was of further inquiry

Accused was granted bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- to the satisfaction of trial court.

Mashirnama of arrest and recovery reflected that K.K. allegedly recovered from the possession of accused, was neither sealed at the spot, nor it was sent to the Forensic and Ballistic Expert in order to know, if same was in working condition

Police party left Police Station through Roznamcha entry, but original departure and arrival entries had not been produced at trial, in order to show that Police party had actually left Police Station for investigation of crime registered at Police Station

Accused was arrested in common street where availability of the private persons in the street at the relevant time could not be ruled out, but Police failed to associate witnesses from the Public, without any satisfactory explanation; it would be unsafe to rely upon evidence without independent corroboration

Material contradictions and inherent defects in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, had also been highlighted by the defence

Such glaring contradictions remained unexplained

Circumstances/defects in the prosecution case were sufficient to hold that prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused

Defence was not duty bound to disprove the case of the prosecution, but burden of proof was always upon the prosecution to prove the case beyond the shadow of doubt, but, in the present case, prosecution had failed to do that

Conviction awarded to accused by the Trial Court could not be sustained

Conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court against accused, were set aside, he was acquitted of the charge and was released, in circumstances.

Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Weapon allegedly recovered from accused, was not sent to Forensic and Ballistic Expert for opinion, so as to determine the nature and caliber of the weapon; and whether the same was automatic, semi-automatic, or in working condition

Place of arrest of accused was said to be thickly populated and commercial area, but no effort was made by the Police to join any person from the public; or there was nothing on record showing that effort was made, and private persons had refused to join as Mashirs of recovery

Requirement of S.103, Cr.P.C. that two private persons of the locality should be associated as Mashirs to the recovery was mandatory, unless it was shown by the prosecution that it was not possible to have two Mashirs from the locality

Contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses with regard recovery of weapon, were enough to create doubt in the prosecution's case

Police Officials, no doubt, as citizen were as good witnesses in the court proceedings as any other person, yet some extra care was needed when they were only eye-witnesses in the case

In the present case, whole proceedings, right from the arrest of accused, the very investigation and submission of challan, were without any lawful authority

Course adopted by the prosecution was in clear violation of law, which being an illegality vitiated the trial

Discrepancies in the case, being not curable, accused was entitled to earn benefit of doubt, not as a matter of grace, but as a matter of right

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused

Kalashnikov allegedly recovered from accused, had neither been sealed at the spot nor sent to Ballistic Expert along with empties for examination and report

Prosecution case being highly doubtful, conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court against accused, were set aside, they were acquitted and released extending them benefit of doubt.

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused as two cases, were registered against accused and his co-accused under one mashirnama

Both the cases were tried and decided by the same court and two judgments were delivered on the same very day

Accused was acquitted, in one case, while in case under S.13(d) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 he was convicted

Trial Court, disbelieved the prosecution evidence in one case, and more or less on the same evidence of prosecution witnesses, convicted accused without assigning sound reasons

Kalashnikov allegedly recovered from accused, having neither been sealed at the spot, nor sent to Ballistic Expert along with empties for examination and report, prosecution case was highly doubtful, in circumstances

Sealing of weapons was essential, particularly in cases, when it was alleged that weapon was used in the commission of crime, and empties were secured from the place of wardat

No doubt Police Officials as citizens, were as good witnesses in the court proceedings, as any other person, yet some amount of care was needed when they were only eye-witnesses in the case

Court, in the exercise of appreciation of evidence, was to see whether witness in question, was not an overzealous witness

Testimony of witnesses, in the case, appeared to be unnatural and untrustworthy, which had created doubt in the prosecution case

All these factors, had created doubt in the prosecution case

Prosecution had to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, but in the present case, there were several circumstances which had created doubt in the prosecution case

Prosecution case being full of doubts, its benefit must be extended to accused

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused, were set aside, he was acquitted of the charge

Accused being on bail, his bail bond, and surety were discharged.

Both complainant and prosecution witness, had fully supported the recovery of weapon from accused; their statements were consistent and reliable, and there was no reason to discard their testimony

Counsel for accused remained unable to show any background of bitterness or ill will between accused and the Police, so as to prompt the Police to falsely involve accused in the case

Police Officials were as good witnesses as any other citizens, unless any mala fide was established against them

Deposition of such witnesses could not be brushed aside simply on the bald allegation that they belong to the Police Department

Generally, persons of locality hesitate to become witness in such like cases

Mere fact that no independent and disinterested witness from public had been associated with the proceedings, by itself, could not be considered sufficient to render the recovery of arm doubtful

In absence of any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, conviction and sentence recorded by court below, were maintained.

Right to fair trial was the essence of criminal justice, whereby each and every party was equal before the court and should be provided fullest opportunity to advance its case and such right having been enshrined under Fundamental Rights under Art.10-A of the Constitution, which postulated fair opportunity of trial, court, while proceeding with a matter, had to keep in mind that no one should be deprived of previous right of defence, or to be condemned unheard/audi alteram partem, which lacked in the case of accused

Trial Court had taken down the prosecution evidence of two witnesses in stereo typed manner in one day, without being cross-examined by adversary

Essence of Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984, as required under its Chapt. X, had not been adhered to in its letter and spirit

Trial was conducted in haste by ignoring the principles of fair trial, and due process as had been guaranteed under the Constitution

Judgment of the Trial Court, was not sustainable

Conviction and sentence of accused were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with directions to allow cross-examination of the witnesses; and by providing full and fair opportunity to accused, and after hearing both the parties, decide the matter afresh accordingly.

Accused under S.340, Cr.P.C. was to be defended by lawyer of his choice, whereas in the present case the counsel was absent and unable to appear on each date

That aspect was required to be justifiably taken into consideration by the Trial Court before the closing the side of accused with "No cross".

Prosecution produced three witnesses, who were all Police Officials, and abandoned the other witnesses being unnecessary

Occurrence took place in abadi of village where inhabitants were present, but none out of private persons, were made witness to the recovery memo

Police Officer had admitted that he could not name any person, who refused to record the statement, or to become a witness to the recovery memo

Police Officer had also admitted that he had not asked accused, as to whether alleged weapon was licensed or otherwise

All proceedings were conducted by Police Officer in the Police Station

Recovery allegedly made from accused had not been proved through tangible evidence

Investigating Officer had not prepared the recovery memos while taking into possession kalashnikov and rounds

Possibility of false implication of accused could not be ruled out

Deficiencies in the prosecution case, were not curable

Innocent person could not be connected with the commission of offence despite numerous lacunas left by the prosecution in the case

Both courts below had failed to appreciate the evidence, and had wrongly convicted and sentenced accused in spite of the fact that no case was made out against accused

Quashment petition was accepted and impugned judgment passed by courts below were set aside and accused was acquitted from the charges levelled against him, and sureties were set free from the liability of bail bond.

Statements of accused persons recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. had not been certified within the meaning of subsection (2) of S.364, Cr.P.C. by the Trial Court, which was mandatory in nature

Law on the subject had not been followed by the Trial Court stricto sensu

Non-compliance of the mandatory provision of S.364, Cr.P.C. at the time of recording statements of accused persons under S.342, Cr.P.C., amounted to illegality, which could not be cured within the meaning of S.537, Cr.P.C. and such uncertified statements of accused persons under S.342, Cr.P.C., would have no evidentiary value; and non-compliance of mandatory provisions of S.364, Cr.P.C., had vitiated the whole trial

Impugned judgment and order of conviction of accused persons passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court below, was not sustainable in the eyes of law, and was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court, with the direction to record the statements of accused persons under S.342, Cr.P.C. in accordance with law on the subject; and thereafter decide case expeditiously on merits.