IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.---The appellants by way of captioned Criminal Jail Appeals have impugned judgment dated 31.08.2018 passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court Ghotki at Mirpur Mathelo, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under; "Accused Shahnawaz and Wali Muhammad for committing offence under section, 4(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, R.I. for 10 years.
Accused Shahnawaz and Wali Muhammad for committing offence of having Explosive Substance, under section 7(1)(ff) of Anti-T errorism Act, 1997, R.I for 14 years.
Accused Shahnawaz for committing offence under section 23(I)(a) Sindh Arms Act, 2013, imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and in case of non-payment of fine, he shall serve S.I. for 4 months more in prison.
Accused Shahnawaz for committing offence under section 24 Sindh Arms Act, 2013, imprisonment for 05 years and also directed to pay fine of Rs.50, 000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), in case of non-payment of fine, he shall serve S.I for 4 months more in prison."
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants were found to be in possession of the Explosive Substances and firearms, for that they were booked and reported upon by the police. At trial, the appellants did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution to prove it, examined complainant SIP Abdul Waheed Bhutto and his witnesses and then closed the side. The appellants during course of their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence, they did not examine any one in their defence or themselves on oath. On hearing of learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants by way of the judgment, which is impugned by the appellants before this Court throug h captioned appeals, those now are being disposed of by this Court through single judgment.
3. At the very outset, it is contended by learned DPG for the State that no question with regard to the reports of Ballistic/ Forensic Expert have been put to any of the appellants during course of his/their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C., such omission according to him could not be overlooked and the record did not speak of availability of the sanction/consent of the Provincial Government which is necessary for proceeding of the case like the present one in terms of Section 7 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. By conte nding so, he sought for remand of the matter for rewriting of the judgment by learned trial Court.
4. None has come forward on behalf of the appellants to rebut the contention raised by learned DPG for the State.
5. In view of above, the impugned judgm ent is set-aside with direction to learned trial Court to rewrite the same after curing the defects which are pointed out by learned DPG for the State preferably within one month time and off-course by providing chance of hearing to all the concerned, as is mandated by Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. Instant captioned appeals are disposed of in the above terms.