Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1992 P Cr. L J 1747

TARIQ MEHMOOD vs THE STATE

Citation1992 P Cr. L J 1747
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Appeal No.391 of 1990
Date1991-07-31
Judge(s)Rashid Aziz Khan, Muhammad Munir Khan
ResultAppeal accepted

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--- This Criminal Appeal No.391 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, whereby he, on 6- 6-1990 convicted Tariq Mehmood, appellant, under section 13 of the Arms Ordnance, 1965, and sentenced him to five years' R.I.

2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed stengun P.1 on 7-5-1989 which was recovered from him by Javed Iqbal P.W.4, Inspector, vide recovery memo. Exh.P.C. Attested by Nazir Hussain S.I., P.W.2 and Muhammad Hussain Sadiq A.S.I. P.W.3. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case; the prosecution produced four witnesses. Abdul Hameed, A.S.I. P.W.1, drafted the formal F.I.R. Nazar Hussain, S.I. P.W.2, Muhammad Hussain Sadiq, P.W.3 and Javed Iqbal, Inspector, P.WA, are the recovery witnesses. They stated that on 7-5-1989 the appellant had got unlicensed stengun P.1 recovered from his Dera situated in Mohallah Fattomand, Gujranwala.

4. When examined under section, 342,' Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the recovery of stengun from him. He did not produce any witness in defence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution has failed to prove that the stengun P.1 recovered from the appellant was an unlicensed arm. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.

6. We have considered the matter carefully. We find that none of the witnesses stated that the appellant had no licence to keep stengun with him. The burden was on the prosecution to prove that not only the appellant was keeping unlicensed stengun but he had no licence to keep it.

Unless the aforesaid two ingredients were/are proved the appellant could not/cannot be convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.

7. For these reasons, we are convinced that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the appellant.

8. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.

H.B.T./ T-4/L

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