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.
Criminal Revision No. 75 of 1983, decided on 8th November, 1983.
---S. 13--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1808), 5.103--Illicit arms- Recovery--Sentence--Overwhelming evidence available against accused regarding recovery of illicit arms from his possession--Conviction main tained--Accused not a previous accused: sentence reduced.--[Recovery- Sentence].
Niaz Ahmad Bokhari for Petitioner.
Tassadaque Hussain Jilani Asstt. A.-G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 8th November, 1983.
On 7th October, 1981 A.S.I. Suba Khan P.W.2 hauled up and recovered a 303 rifle P.1 , four live cartridges P.2/1-4 and a dagger P.3 from the possession of the petitioner in the presence of Ghulam Abbas P.W. 1 at Nautak Mahmood. The petitioner was challaned for he did not possess any licence for these arms. The case was tried by Magistrate 1st Class, Dera Ghazi Khan, who convicted the petitioner under section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to 3 years' rigorous imprison ment vide his judgment, dated 18th January, 1982. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel at the outset conceded that the factum of recovery of illicit arms from the possession of the petitioner is not open to exception in view of the overwhelming evidence available on record. He, however, submitted that the sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner at any rate is excessive specially because he has not been proved to be a previous convict. I have considered this submission of the learned counsel in the light of material on record. The learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State conceded that minimum ceiling of sentence of the offence has been provided in the Arms Ordinance. Also, he did not seriously oppose the reduction of sentence of the petitioner in this case.
3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is excessive. I, therefore, while maintaining the conviction feel disposed to reduce the same from three years to one and a half years' rigorous imprisonment as it would be sufficient to meet the requirement of this case. It is further. directed that the petitioner shall be given benefit of the provision of section 382-B, Cr. P.C. and the period he spent in jail before his conviction shall also be computed towards his substantive sentence. In result this revision petition is accepted partly.
M. Y. H . Petition partly accepted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer