Proceedings under section 13-E, Arms Ordinance in Special Case No.426 of 1994 are pending before the Special Court No.1, S.T.A. Hyderabad on the averments that on 1-11-1990 Law Enforcing Agency, Hyderabad handed over as many as 28 persons allegedly affiliated with Al-Zulfiqar Organisation for taking action during the course of investigation since weapons were secured from their possession in presence of Mashirs Allah Bux Jiskani, S.D.P.O. City and Liaquat A.I, Writer Head Constable C.I.A., Hyderabad. The petitioner is one of those 28 persons who were prosecuted before the Special Court after the registration of Crime No.456 of 1990 in which proceedings were quashed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Nasir Aslam Zahid, C.J. And Shoukat H. Zubedi, J. As reported in PLD 1993 Karachi .735. It is alleged that 10 Kalashnikovs, 10 slings and 1560 rounds were recovered from the possession of the petitioner for which he could not produce any licence.
Accordingly a separate case under section 13-D of Arms Ordinance vide Crime No.250 of 1990 was registered at Police Station Cantt. Against him and he was sent up. The petitioner moved an application for his acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Before the trial Court but without any success hence this petition for quashment of the proceedings.
2. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner' that entire case culminating in recovery of incriminating articles was found; to: be false by a Division Bench of this Court as reported in the case of Muhammad Sadiq Umarani v. Government of Sindh PLD 1993 Karachi 735. The State did not file any acquittal appeal from the said judgment which has attained finality and is binding on all concerned for all intents and purposes. The petitioner being one of those 28 accused persons and the present proceedings being offshoot of the main case he cannot be discriminated or treated in a different manner. There is a considerable force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner which has not been challenged by the learned State Counsel. In the circumstances, we are inclined to the view that the petitioner is entitled to equal protection of law and equal treatment in the eyes of law.
3. The next ground urged in support of the petitioner is that on identical evidence and in similar set of circumstances proceedings in Special Case No .428 of 1990 against accused Zaheeruddin were quashed by another Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.247 of 1994 by a Bench consisting of Ghulam Haider Lakho and Dr. Ghous Muhammad, JJ. On 28-5--1996.
A perusal of the judgment in the said case clearly tends to show that learned Counsel appearing for State frankly conceded to the quashment of the proceedings. The aforesaid judgment as well as the concession by the State Counsel are not controverted before us by the learned A. A.-G. It is also not disputed that the facts of the case against Zaheeruddin are on all four with the facts of the present case. Notwithstanding usual stand taken by the learned A.A.-G. We are inclined to the view that the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of accused Zaheeruddin. No circumstance has been shown to exist to warrant a different treatment to the petitioner who in law is entitled to equal treatment and equal protection of law.
4. For the aforesaid facts and reasons we are of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner shall amount to gross abuse of process of Court and it is in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings. It may be made clear that the case was fixed for Katchi Peshi but since both the learned counsel have advanced arguments on the merits of the petition we are disposing of the petition finally.