Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.377 of 1977, decided on 24th November, 1984.

‑‑‑S.13‑‑Conviction‑‑Planting of recovery of so many arms worth thousands of rupees, unimaginable‑‑Accused failing to produce any licence for keeping arms in his possession‑‑Conviction under S.13 and sentence of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment. held. proper in circum stances.

Nemo for Appellant.

Tassadaq Hussain Jillani, Asstt. A.‑G. far the State.

Date of hearing: 24th November, 1984.

This is an appeal through jail filed by Abdul Ghafoor son of Atta Muhammad caste Sarkani resident of village Chit Sarkani, Police Station Choti, district Dera Ghazi Khan, who was convicted by Sh. Ansar Baseer, Magistrate Section 30, under Arms Ordinance, 1965, vide his judgment dated 30‑11‑1976 and sentenced to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment.

2. According to the prosecution, S.I. Muhammad Rafiq (P.W.3) received secret information that a person who deals in unlicensed arms is bringing arms and ammunition from Dera Ghazi Khan to Choti via Mamoori. He, therefore, collected Nazar Hussain (P.W.1) and Rafiq Ali (P.W.2) with other police officials and picketted near village Paigah on the night between 18/19‑1‑1976. At 5.30 in the morning they spotted Abdul Ghafoor, appellant, coming from Mamoori side and rounded him up. On his personal search a .303‑bore rifle P.1, two .32‑bore pistols P.2/1‑2 and 11 cartridges P.3/1‑11 and a pistol P.4 were recovered which were seized under memo. Exh. P.A. As the appellant possessed no licence for keeping these arms, therefore, S.I. Muhammad Rafiq drafted complaint Exh. P.B. under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and got a case registered at Police Station Choti. The appellant was arrested and after usual investigation he was challaned to Court.

3. At the trial in support of its case the prosecution examined 3 witnesses, namely, Nazar Hussain (P.W.1), Rafiq Ali (P.W.2) and S.I. Muhammad Rafiq (P.W.3), Except Nazar Hussain (P.W.1) the others supported tire prosecution wholeheartedly. At the conclusion of trial the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution allegation. In reply to the question, why the case was brought against him, he replied that one Ghulam Hussain, Zamindar, had illegally possessed his 18 Bighas of land and when he asked him to vacate the same he got him entangled in this false case. He offered to produce defence evidence and examined solitary witness, namely, Sohanra (D.W.1) who supported the plea of the appellant. In cross‑examination, however, he stated that he did net know as to when the appellant was arrested and when was he involved in this case. He also expressed his ignorance if the appellant used to smuggle arms from the hilly area to other parts of Dera Ghazi Khan district. He conceded that he was challaned in certain criminal cases but explained that they were concocted at the instance of one Jaffer Laghari.

4. On consideration of material on record, learned trial Magistrate believed the prosecution case and observed that keeping of unlicensed weapon has gained ground in the society and there was likelihood of the situation getting worse if a lenient view was taken. Accordingly, he sentenced the appellant to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved the instant appeal has been filed.

5. I have gone through the record with the assistance of learned Assistant Advocate‑General carefully and minutely considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. It is unimaginable that recovery of so many arms worth thousands of rupees was planted to falsely implicate the appellant, therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court that arms anti ammunition P.1 to P.4 were recovered from the appellant is unassailable Since the appellant A failed to produce any licence for keeping these arms in his possession, therefore, he has been rightly found guilty under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The sentence of 5 years awarded, in the circumstances of the case, also appears to be appropriate and is not excessive. Resultantly, this appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

M. A. K. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.