Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7(h)

Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Section: 5

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 40

Law: Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)

Section: 14

(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 7(h)---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 14---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 5---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Acts of terrorism, possession of illegal weapons, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances---Appreciation of evidence--- Recovery made on information (pointation) of accused---Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. and Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Scope---Police had allegedly recovered arms, ammunition and explosives on the alleged pointation of accused persons (appellants)---Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons under S.14 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, under S.5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and under S.7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Validity---Information provided by accused persons, which led to the discovery of arms, ammunitions and explosives came within the scope of Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Section 103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable to the present case , as no search was to be made by the police officials rather it was the accused persons who led to the recovery of arms, ammunitions and explosives---Police witnesses were good witnesses and could be relied upon if their testimony remained unshattered during cross-examination and no mala fide, ill-will and personal grudge was attributed to them---Marginal witness (police official) and investigation officer supported the version of the prosecution and stood firm during their cross-examination and nothing beneficial could be elicited from them to cast doubt on their veracity---Arms experts confirmed that the weapons recovered were in working condition---Minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were not substantive enough to create doubt about the involvement and guilt of accused persons---Prosecution had proved the factum of recovery on the basis of convincing evidence---Appeal against conviction of accused persons was dismissed accordingly. Mir Muhammad v. The State 1994 SCMR 614 and Riaz Hussain v. The State 2010 MLD 1127 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 40---Recovery made on…

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