Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1985, decided on 8th December,1986.
‑‑‑S. 382‑B‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) S.13--‑ Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3‑‑Unlicensed revolver and heroin recovered from accused‑‑Separate challans under Arms Ordinance and Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, put up in Court‑‑Accused remaining in jail for about 18 months‑‑Entire sentence undergone by accused‑‑Benefit of S.382‑B, Cr.P.C. not given to accused as granted is other case‑‑Accused not claiming benefit in other case‑ Accused having already undergone entire sentence in one case was' granted benefit of S.382‑B, Cr.P.C. and would not be entitled to benefit in other case.
Rustom J . E. Kaikobad for Appellant.
Ashraf Khan Tanooli for the State.
Date of hearing: 8th December, 1986.
On 16‑6‑1984 A.S.I . Malik Muhammad Nawaz on spy information detained and searched the present appellant and it is alleged that search resulted in recovery of unlicenced Revolver and 235 grams of Heroin from the appellant. The said A.S.I, seized the contraband item under a Mashirnama and arrested the appellant. Two separate F.I.Rs. were registered; one in respect of 13‑D Arms Ordinance and the other in respect of Hadd Order. After usual investigation the appellant was sent up to face two separate trials. At the trial the prosecution examined P.W. Muhammad Bux who stated that on the day of incident he alongwith A.S.I. Malik Muhammad Nawaz went for patrolling and on spy information the appellant was apprehended and on his personal search secured one Revolver and 235 grams of Heroin. As the Revolver was without licence, therefore, the appellant was sent up for trial. He has been corroborated by A.S.I. Malik Muhammad Nawaz in all material particulars. The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations. He examined. D.Ws, Jalal and Rustam. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the case against the appellant has been established. There was no licence with the appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the date of incident is 16‑6‑1984 and the appellant was arrested on the same day. In this case, the judgment was announced on 12‑i1‑1985 and the sentence was suspended on 19‑12‑1985, therefore, the appellant had remained in custody for about 18 months, therefore, he has already undergone the entire sentence imposed by the trial Court. No benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was granted to the appellant in this case as he was granted the concession of section 382‑B in the Hadd Order Case. The appellant is not entitled to the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. in two cases and if the benefit is given to him in this case he is not entitled to that benefit in the other case. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he would not request for such benefit in the Hadd case, As the appellant has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him, therefore, the concession of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C, is granted to the appellant in this case. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds in this case stand discharged.
S. A. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer