Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 976 1991 SLD 976 1991 SCMR 461
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 5-Q of 1990, decision dated: 26-08-1990(From the judgment of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 3-6-1990 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1990)
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

KHUDAI RAHIM

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)--S.13-E---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal--­Courts below were not in error in treating the rifle of 7.62 MM calibre, allegedly recovered from accused, to be a prohibited bore weapon as the same was not excluded by the notification specifying weapons of prohibited bore---Report of fired shots had attracted the police officer and in such emergent situation he could not have possibly associated public witnesses in the recovery---Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Dost Muhammad v. The State 1986 SCMR 462 distinguished. JUDGMENT SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner a convict under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 15-5-1990, whereby his appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. 2. At about mid-night. on 2-8-1988, there was heard noise of firing from Killi Shadi Khan, whereupon the S.H.O. Mr. Farooq Jafar (P.W. 1) alongwith police strength went there and found the petitioner in possession of a China made rifle of 7.62 M.M. calibre alongwith 10 live cartridges and four empties lying on `the ground. As the petitioner held no licence for it, he was proceeded under separately for offence under section 336, P.P.C. and under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The petitioner in his statement in his defence stated that he was asleep in his house when he was called at the Police Station and confronted with the weapons whose possession or ownership he denied. He produced two witnesses in defence in support of his plea. 3. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence produced before it, found the recovery of the weapon proved and sentenced him to three years' R.I. which was the minimum prescribed by law for a prohibited bore weapon. The High Court by the impugned judgment rejected the appeal. 4. Mr. S.A.M. Quadri, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner at the first took the plea that the two Courts were in error in treating the weapon, allegedly recovered, to be a prohibited…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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