MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--- This Criminal Appeal No.909 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, whereby he, .On 3- 12-1990 convicted Shahbaz alias Raja, appellant, under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to four years' R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed stengun P.1 on 24-9-1987 which he got recovered in the presence of Muhammad Hussain P.W.1, and Fazal Hussain Inspector, P.W.4. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced four witnesses. Fazal Hussain, Inspector, P.W.4, stated that on 24-9-1987 the appellant got recovered stengun P.1 and a bag containing 18 live cartridges P.2/1-18 from a brick-kiln in village Gohadpur which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.A.
The Appellant was not having licence to keep these arms Muhammad' Hussain, P.W.1, supported him. Abdul Hameed, A.S.I., P.W.2 had prepared the formal F.I.R.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of stengun P.1 and live cartridges from him. He raised the plea of false implication but did not produce any witness in defence.
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 was illegal inasmuch as at the alleged time of the recovery of arms from the appellant, the relevant Ordinance in which stengun was added in the relevant schedule was not in existence. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
6. We have considered the matter carefully and have examined the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Lahore High Court. We do not see any reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at in that case. We find that the Ordinance by which arms such as Klashnikov and sten gun were added in the list of the arms mentioned in the relevant schedule of Act, 1975 had expired before the date of the recovery of sten gun from the appellant and no proceedings under the Arms Ordinance were pending before the trial Court at the time of occurrence. So there is no option but to accept this appeal.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any case.
Needless to add the State would be within 'its rights to file challan before a Court of competent of jurisdiction/Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner for the trial of the appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, in accordance with law.
H.B.T./S-27/L