' This is an appeal against the order, dated 9-4-1988 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang convicted Ghulam Haider appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to one year's R.I.
2. The relevant facts which gave rise to the present appeal are that Ghulam Haider appellant who was arrested in a murder case on 11-4-1986 while in custody, led to the recovery of an unlicensed pistol P.1 and cartridge P.2 from his residential Kotha situated in village Dull, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang. The said articles were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by Khadim Hussain P.W.2 and Zafar Iqbal (not produced). Sub-Inspector Saced Akhtar, who was investigating the murder case, drafted complaint Exh.P.A. Under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 against the appellant and sent it to Police Station Garh Maharaja for the registration of a case. On the basis of the said complaint formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was recorded. After the completion of the investigation the appellant was challaned and sent up for trial by the Session Court.
3. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhang formally charged the appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 but he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined three witnesses in support of its case.
5. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied that he had led to the recovery of the pistol and the cartridge in question. He maintained that the said articles were planted on him to strengthen the connected murder case.
6. Relying on the prosecution evidence the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has come up in appeal.
8. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the material available on record.
9. The allegation against the appellant is that a pistol had been recovered from him for which he had no licence. His case, therefore, falls under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 and the weapon recovered from him is not covered under the proviso to the said section. In these circumstances, the case against him was triable by a Magistrate 1st Class under section 14-A ibid and not by a Sessions Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant's trial by the learned Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction, could not he controverted by the learned counsel representing the State. It has been held by this Court in Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 314, Muhammad Siddiq v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 1855 and Atta Muhammad v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 2179 that a case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 was exclusively triable by a Magistrate of the 1st Class and trial of such an offence by a Sessions Judge was coram non judice and a nullity in the eye of law. The convictions and sentences of the appellant in the cited cases were set aside on that ground. Following the said decisions of this Court I accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
10. The appellant remained behind the bars in connection with this case and the linked murder case till 12-8-1990 when he was acquitted in the latter case by the High Court. It means he has already undergone about four years' imprisonment which was more than enough. He has already suffered the throes of a protracted trial. I, therefore, am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which retrial should not be ordered for it will not be in the interest of justice. I order accordingly.