' FAZAL KARIM, J.-- Fazal Abbas, appellant, has applied against his conviction and sentence recorded by a judgment of the learned Special Court No, IX, Gujranwala, dated 10-3-1988, under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. For three years and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For one year.
2. The prosecution case was that for the arrest of the accused persons in case F.I.R. No, 347 of 1987, Malik Safdar Inspector/S.H.O. P.S. Kharian District Gujrat, raided the house of one Anwar Shah. There Fazal Abbas, appellant, was found in possession of a .12 bore pistol with one live cartridge. As Fazal Abbas, appellant, had no licence for keeping the pistol and the catridges, he was challaned under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance.
1965.
3. The Special Court was constituted under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987; that Act came into force on the 25th of November, 1987. By section 5 of the Act, the Government has power to order that a case shall be tried by a Special Court, if it is of the opinion that the case relates to an offence which should in public interest be tried and decided speedily. The term `offence' is defined in section 2 of the Act, to mean an offence specified in the Schedule and in the Schedule the offences mentioned are the offences punishable under `sections 302, 303, 396 and 397' and any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction in which any of the said offences is committed or in addition to, or in combination with, such offence'.
4. It is stated that the order of the Provincial Government directing the trial of this case by the Special Court was made on 10-1-1988, that is, after the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987, had come into force.
5. It is obvious that at the date of the Government's order, dated the 10th of January, 1988, an offence against section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, was not an offence for the purposes of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987. There is an observation in the learned Special Judge's judgment, namely, that 'the offence in this case was committed in the course of the same transaction in which the accused committed dacoity'. It is, however, not clear if the pistol said to have been recovered from the appellant was used in the commission of the dacoity. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant was not an accused in the dacoity cast; this statement was not controverted. It cannot, therefore, be said that the offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance was committed in the course of the transaction in which the offences in case F.I.R. No, 347 of 1987 were alleged to have been committed. It, therefore, follows inevitably that the Government was not competent to order the trial of this case by the Special Court and the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try it.
6. We, therefore, hold that the conviction and sentence are without jurisdiction. Consequently the appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant is acquitted. He shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case.