Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 123 of 1981, decided on 19th February, 1984.
‑‑‑S.13‑B‑‑Recovery of illicit arms‑‑Statements of prosecution witnesses straightforward and convincing and no enmity alleged against them No misreading of evidence by lower Courts, pointed out‑‑Contention that accused having been disarmed by public persons and provisions of S.8 of Arms Ordinance having been violated, conviction of accused could not be maintained, held, having no force‑‑Conviction and sentence maintained, in circumstances.
Samiuddin Siddiqui for Petitioner Abbas Farooqi for the State. Date of hearing: 13th February, 1984.
Applicant above named, being aggrieved by judgment, dated 15th December, 1980 of the learned F.C.M. and Civil Judge, Tando AIIahyar Khan and judgment, dated 14th November, 1981 of the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1980, by which applicant has been convicted under section 13‑D of Arms Ordinance, has preferred the above petition on the following facts and grounds:‑
On 6th August, 1980 A.S.I. Police Umar Sand had lodged a report alleging therein, that vide entry No.5, he had left police post Umar Sand alongwith LNK Muhammad Ismail, P.C. Ghulam Hyder and the complainant of Crime No. 109/80 Nasiruddin for the village Usman Shah‑ji Huri, in the house of complainant. The appellant Shitab, Feroze and Ali Muhammad were arrested. The revolver snatched by P.W. Ghulam Muhammad. Feroz from appellant Shitab was secured. On opening the revolver it was found containing six bullets. The appellant Shitab could not produced the licence of the revolver. The appellant Shitab was arrested under section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance. Thereafter the appellant, alongwith recovery, was brought at the P.P. Umar Sand, where the A.S.I. lodged F.I.R. on behalf of State.
Tando Allahyar Police after usual investigation sent up the appellant as above.
A charge Exh.2 was framed against appellant Shitab, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial. Prosecution has examined P.W. Kaley Khan Exh.3, who has produced the Mashirnama of arrest and recovery from the appellant as Exh.3‑B and 3‑C P.W. Ghulam Muhammad deposed as Exh.4 P.W. Shamby as Exh.5 and A.S.I. Police Jaro Khan as Exh.6 who produced F.I.R. as Exh.6‑A. Statement of appellant Shitab was recorded as Exh.8. The appellant has examined D.Ws. Siddique Exh.9 and D.W. Malkha as Exh.10.
Learned trial Court taking into the consideration the evidence adduced before it, convicted and sentenced the applicant the abovenamed as hereinbefore mentioned the appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and consequently applicant has filed the above petition, on the grounds mentioned in the memo of petition.
The learned Advocate for applicant in support of above petition submitted, that there is misreading of evidence on the part of both the learned lower Courts. In addition to this applicant is alleged to have been disarmed by private person, and as such section 8 of the Arms Ordinance was violated and consequently conviction of the applicant cannot be maintained in law.
The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted that P.W. Ghulam Muhammad and P.W. Kaley Khan have fully supported prosecution case, that revolver in possession of applicant at the time of incident was snatched from him and on arrival of police the said revolver and applicant was handed over to police, who prepared necessary Mashirnamas on spot and asked the applicant about licence, but he was unable to produce one.
I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R 6 P of the learned trial Court and impugned judgments.
Statements of Kaley Khan and P.W. Ghulam Muhammad are straight forward and convincing. Applicant had alleged no enmity against either of these two witnesses. Statement of 2 D.Ws. depose not inspire confidence. Both the learned trial Court after due appraisal of evidence on record came to conclusions and finding, with which I see no reason to disagree as learned Advocate for applicant was unable to point out any misreading on the part of both the learned lower Courts. Contention of learned counsel that since applicant was disarmed by public person, provisions of section 8 of the Arms Ordinance were violated and as such conviction of applicant cannot be maintained, has no force at all. I find no merits in the above petition.
Therefore I dismiss the above petition and cancel the bail bond executed by the applicant and direct the learned trial Court to issue non‑bailable warrants for arrest of applicant and on his arrest to remand him back to judicial custody to serve out remaining sentences awarded to him by both the impugned judgments. However I grant benefit of provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. to applicant in respect of his period of detention as under‑trial prisoner, if any, in addition to all the remissions to which applicant may be entitled in accordance with rules.
S.G.D Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer