Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1992 P Cr. L J 838

MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE

Citation1992 P Cr. L J 838
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Appeal No.685 of 1990
Date1991-07-16
Judge(s)Rashid Aziz Khan, Muhammad Munir Khan
ResultAppeal accepted

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J. -- This Criminal Appeal No.685 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Lahore, whereby -- he, on 21-10- 1990 convicted Muhammad Hayat, appellant, under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to three years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default thereof one year's R.I.

2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed semi--automatic pistol P.1 on 24-4- 1990. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Shahid Iqbal, P.W.1, had prepared the formal F.I.R. Fazal Elahi, H.C. P.W.2, stated that in his presence Muhammad Yusuf, S.I. Had arrested the appellant and recovered a mauzer containing 3 bullets P.2/1 to 3 which was taken into possession vide memo. P.C. Attested by him. Muhammad Yusuf, P.W.3, made similar statement. He stated that the appellant had no licence to keep the mauzer.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the recovery of mauzer from him. He produced Ghulam SarwarD.W.l, in defence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Bukhtiar Ahmad's case PLJ 1991 Criminal Cases (Lah.) 187 in which the Division Bench of this court has held that the trial of an accused person on the charge of keeping mauzer by Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) was coram non judice. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.

6. We have examined the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. We fully agree with the observation made by this Court in that case. This being the position, there is no option but to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Needless to add that the State would be well within its right to submit challan against the appellant on the same charge before Ilaqa Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner, for his trial in accordance with law.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch