| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2184 2021 SLD 2184 2021 PLJ 65 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Jail Petition No. 36 of 2016, decided on 21.4.2020, Date of hearing: 21.4.2020. (Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15.12.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 772 of 2013)
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Mr. Saeed Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Additional P.G. Punjab for State.
Jail Petition No. 36 of 2016, decided on 21.4.2020, Date of hearing: 21.4.2020. (Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15.12.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 772 of 2013)
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Mr. Saeed Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Additional P.G. Punjab for State.
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB
VS
STATE
Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Section: 4,2
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7(g)
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (VI of 1908)-- ----S. 4--Anti-Terrorism Act, (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(g)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--It is an admitted fact that opening sentence of crime report clearly reflects that petitioner is active member of proscribed religious organization and as such in pursuance of information after constituting raiding party; premises of petitioner were raided--During course of proceedings of raiding party, petitioner led to recovery of not only four grenades but also four detonators which is spelled out from record especially when Bomb Disposal Officer came there for defusing aforesaid ammunition which was recovered and was found explosive in nature--Detail mentioned by Bomb Disposal Unit reflects a lot regarding genuineness of raid and recovery effected from premises owned by petitioner--Arguments of learned counsel that in fact recovered articles do not comes within ambit of Explosive Substances Act, is not of any avail, rather same seems to be absurd in nature--Counsel while arguing matter has only advanced case up to extent of recovery of “grenades”--Other article in shape of detonator was also recovered which ultimately if considered conjointly it comes within definition of explosive substance--Definition of same reflects that any material which if utilized results into explosion comes with definition of explosive substance--While analysing evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses and while evaluating probative value of same, if juxtaposed with evidence adduced by defence, we found that evidence adduced by prosecution is straight-forward, confidence inspiring and while satisfying all legal requirements to prove case to hilt, resulting into dismissal of petition before this Court--As a consequence, same is dismissed. Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (VI of 1908)-- ----S. 2--Definition of explosive substance--Bare perusal of definition reflects that explosive substance shall be deemed to be any material which is used or attended to be used for causing any explosion which could endanger life--There is no second cavil to this proposition that recovery of four grenades and detonators are material which could explode and…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492