SR. RIAZ AHMAD, J.--- Muhammad Mansha appellant was tried by a Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act,1975 on a charge under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. Vide judgment, dated 10-11-1990 learned Judge. Special Court found the appellant guilty and thus he was convicted and sentenced to three -years R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For a term of one year. Aggrieved by his conviction, the appellant preferred this appeal which shall be disposed of through this judgment.
2. At the very outset the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 to try this case.
Precisely it was contended by the learned counsel that under the amendment in the Arms Ordinance, 1965, only automatic or semi-automatic weapons were the appropriate subjects of the trial by the aforesaid Courts. It was contended that in this case the weapon recovered from the appellant was a pistol and thus the Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 had no jurisdiction to try him and as such the conviction has to be set aside.
3. On the other hand learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently argued that the amendment brought by the Legislature in 1990 would cover the weapon which was recovered from the appellant, inasmuch as the report of the Forensic Laboratory shows that the weapon recovered from the appellant was semi-automatic and therefore, the Court had the jurisdiction to try this case. Learned counsel for the appellant controverted this argument raised by the learned Additional Advocate General and stated that automatic or semi--automatic weapons have been defined by the legislature to be Klashnikov, G-III rifle and any assault rifle and if the legislature intended to bring the semi-automatic pistol within the amendment, there was no bar in its way to do so. This question has been dealt with in Muhammad Raza Irani v. Government of Pakistan 1991 P Cr. L J 583; Muhammad Arshad Mughal v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 780 and Bakhtiar Ahmad v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 2398. In all these cases it was held that recovery of a pistol or a mauser was not a subject A matter for the trial by a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act, 1975 and only an ordinary Court has the jurisdiction to try such cases. We also follow the same view and thus we hold that the trial of the appellant by the Special Court was coram non judice and therefore, the 8 conviction has to be set aside. Accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant who shall be tried by an ordinary Court.