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. 6 of 1985/BWP, decided on 14th January, 1986.
-‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Pistol with two live cartridges' recovered from accused‑‑‑No allegation against accused that he had no licence for keeping pistol‑ Accused, held, could not be convicted unless it was proved that he had no such licence‑‑Revision was accepted in circumstances.
Sardar M. Aslam Khan for Petitioner.
M.A. Hameed for the State.
Date of hearing: 14th January, 1986.
The facts giving rise to this revision, briefly, are that Mazhar petitioner was tried by the learned A . C . Hasilpur under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 on the allegations. that he was keeping unlicensed pistol alongwith two live cartridges. The petitioner denied the charge.
2. To prove its case, prosecution examined 3 witnesses. Falak Sher P.W. 1 and Muhammad Nawaz P.W. 2 stated that Mazhar appellant was carrying a pistol Exh. P .1. Khan Muhammad, S.I. ,P.W. 3 stated that on 2‑8‑1983 he had arrested Mazhar petitioner in case under section 307134, P.P.C. His person was searched and pistol Exh. P.1. alongwith two live cartridges were recovered from him.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced Falak Sher D.W.1 and Muhammad Hussain D.W.2.
4. The learned trial Court convicted the petitioner on 26‑5‑1985 and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. The appeal filed by the petitioner also failed on 7‑12‑1985, hence this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements made by the three witnesses accepted at its face value, no offence punishable under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 is made out, inasmuch as, none of the witnesses have said that the petitioner was not having a licence for keeping pistol. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the prosecution witnesses have deposed about the licence. They simply stated that pistol. Exh. P .1. alongwith two live cartridges were recovered from the petitioner. To my mind, unless it is proved by the prosecution that the petitioner had no licence for the fire‑arm, the accused/petitioner cannot be convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
7. For what has been said above, there is no option but to accept the revision and acquit the petitioner of the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in some other case.
S.A. Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer