MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J: -- This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Presiding Officer Special Courts (Suppression of Terrorists Activities), Lahore, whereby he on 14-5-1990, convicted Sohail Azeem appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to 5 years' R.I.
The charge against him was of keeping unlicensed Mauzer Exh.P.1 and 2 bullets Exh.P.2/1-2 on 25- 4-1989. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution produced 3 witnesses. Aziz Ullah, S.I., drafted the formal F.I.R.
Exh.P.B. Ali Sher S.I. P.W.2 stated that on 25-4-1989, alongwith Walayat Hussain Shah, Inspector and other police officials were present in a Chowk where they received secret information that some students who had indulged in firing had concealed themselves in the nearby street. So the police party raided the street near Faran Hotel. Sohail Azeem was apprehended. He got recovered mauser Exh.P.1 and bullets Exh.P.2 and bullets Exh.P.2/1-2, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. Walayat Hussain Shah, Inspector P.W.3 supported the statement made by P.W.2.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the recovery of mauser and bullets from him. He made statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And also produced lkram Ullah and Sarfraz Hussain PWs.
5. Believing the prosecution evidence and disbelieving the plea of false implication and evidence of defence witnesses, the trial Court has convicted the appellant as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the appellant on the charge of keeping mauser and that on 2~-4-1989, the Ordinance by which the amendment was made in the schedule included automatic or semi automatic weapons, had already elapsed. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
7. We have considered the matter. We rind that the Division Bench of this Court in Bakhtiar Ahmad's case reported as 1991 P Cr. L J 2398 has already held that the trial of the accused persons on the charge of holding mauser by Special Courts (Suppression of Terrorists Activities) was coram non judice. We have examined the aforestated judgment. We do not see any reason to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court.
Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. The trial Court will return the challan of the case to the S.H.O. Concerned for presentation before Assistant Commissioner/Illaqa Magistrate, if so W, by the State. The appellant shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to ,the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate City, Lahore.
S.A./S-34/L