| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 2003 1992 SLD 2003 1992 PLJ 155 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 1990, (also 560 and 634 of 1990) accepted on24.11.1991.. Date of hearing: 24.11.1991.
SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR AND MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 1990, (also 560 and 634 of 1990) accepted on24.11.1991.. Date of hearing: 24.11.1991.
SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR AND MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
BAKHTIAR AHMAD--Appellant
VS
THE STATE--Respondent
Law: Arms Ordinance, 1965
Section: 13
Arms Ordinance, 1965 (XX of 1965)-- —S.13 read with Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, Schedule-Automatic Mauser etc.-Recovery of-Conviction for~Challenge to - -Whether offence fell under Schedule to Act, 975-Question of—Words such as klashinkov, a G-III rifle or any other type of assault rifle indicate that intention of legislature was not to bring all automatic or semi-automatic weapons under purview of chedule to Act, 1975-Offences under Arms Ordinance in respect of rifle of .303 bore or over, musket of .410 bore or over, pistol or revolver of .441 bore or over, or ammunition which can be fired from such rifle, musket, pistol or revolver, are not scheduled offences under Act of 1975-Mauser is not a weapon but is name of manufacturer of pistols and revolvers-Held: Trials before Special Courts being omm-non-judice, appeals must succeed. [Pp.l61162]A,BC JUDGMENT Muhammad Amir Malik, J.--Najam-ul-Hassan, Bakhtiar Ahmad and Abdul Rehman were convicted under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 by Special Courts constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. They have appealed against their conviction and sentence. Since a common question of law has been raised, it is proposed to dispose of the appeals by a single judgment. 2. According to the prosecution case Najam-ul-Hassan, Bakhtiar Ahmad and Abdul Rehman had respectively led to the recovery/were found in possession of .32 bore automatic Mauser, .30 bore (magzine) Mauser and .30 bore automatic Mauser. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the weapons/arms recovered from the appellants did not fall under paragraph (c) or (cc) of the Schedule to the Act of 1975. Thus, according to them, the Courts constituted under the Act were coram-non-judice. Contrary view was convassed by the learned Addl. Advocate General. 4. To appreciate the contentions raised, broad features and provisions of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 need be reviewed. 5. West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 (XX of 1965) was promulgated by the Governor of West Pakistan in exercise of powers…
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