This Criminal Appeal No.356 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Curt (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Sargodha, whereby he, on 29-5-1990 convicted Muhammad Khan, appellant, under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to five years-- - R.I. And a fine of Rs. 10,000 or in default thereof one year---s R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed stengun P.1 and 9 live cartridges P.2/1-9 on 25-2-1990. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution produced four witnesses. Issab Khan, P.W.4, had drafted the formal F.I.R. Abdur Razzaq, S.I. P.W.1, and Muhammad Anwar P W.2, are the recovery witnesses. Abdur Razzaq, P.W.1, stated that on 25-2-1990 he arrested the appellant and on his personal search stengun P.1 and 9 live cartridges P.2/1-9 were recovered for which he had no licence. Muhammad Anwar, P.W.2 supported him. Khair Muhammad P.W:3 stated that on 9-4-19)0, he examined stengun P.1 and was of the opinion that the same could fire automatic burst as well as single shot.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of stengun and cartridges from him.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Muhammad Aslam alias Sooba v. State 1990 P Cr. L J 704 to contend that the trial of the appellant by the Special Court on the charge of keeping unlicensed stengun on 25-2-1990 was illegal. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the "Muhammad Aslam's case" carefully. We do not see any reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Division Bench of this Court in "Muhammad Aslam's case".
Admittedly the Ordinance by which amendment in the relevant schedule to the relevant Act of 1975 was made had expired much before the date recovery, and on 25-2-1990 no proceedings under the Arms Ordinance on the charge of keeping unlicensed stengun was pending in Special Court.
This being the position, we feel that the conviction of the appellant by the trial Court on the charge of keeping stengun on 25-2-1990, was illegal.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and the conviction_and sentence of the appellant is set aside. The trial Court will return, 8 the challan to the S.H.O./Officer who had presented it in the Court, for filing before the Court of competent of jurisdiction. The appellant is on bail. He will remain on bail during his trial by a Court of competent jurisdiction.