Find a Lawyer

---Ss. 342(2) & 364--West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-E--Examination of accused--Accused not examined on oath and question put to him was whether he wanted to be examined on oath to which he denied--Question put as such, as well as statement of accused, held, not fulfilling requirements of law--Case remanded back to trial Court with direction to decide case on merits in accordance with law.

P L D 1986 Quetta 286; 1986 P Cr. L J 1723 and P L D 1986 F S C 242 rel.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

--Ss. 342(2) & 364--West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-E--Appreciation of evidence--Evidence of Mashir recorded in main case and his statement from that case transferred to present case- Statement of Mashir, held, had no evidentiary value in circumstances.

P L D 1976 Lah. 1446; P L J 1975 Kar. 507 and P L D 1983 Lah. 312 rel.

A.Q. Halepota for Appellant.

Zaheer Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th May, 1987.

Appellant Ali Sher has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13-E of Arms Ordinance and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000 or in default to suffer R.I. for three months more by the learned Sessions Judge Sanghar vide judgment, dated 17-2-1987.

The allegation against the appellant is that he led police party and mashirs to his house and produced one country made pistol and two cartridges. The case under section 13-E of Arms Ordinance was registered. He was challaned and sentenced as stated above.

I have heard Mr. A.Q. Halepota for the appellant and Mr. Zaheer Oureshi appearing for the State.

Both the counsel submitted that this case be remanded on the ground that appellant was not examined on oath nor statement of the accused fulfils the requirement of Section 364 Cr.P.C.

I have gone through the statement. Learned Sessions Judge has put one question only to the appellant if he wants to examine himself on oath who denied. The requirement of law as contemplated in Section 342 (2) Cr.P.C. is that the Court shall examine him on oath. This question does not fulfil the requirements as in my view, the statement on oath, should independently required under Section 342 (2) Cr.P.C. The statement shall be signed by the accused and Judge has to certify the same as required under section 364 Cr.P.C. On this I refer to a case reported in PLD 1986 Quetta 286 and 1986 P.Cr.L.J. F.S.C. 1723 and PLD 1986 F.S.C. 242. Moreover I have gone through the evidence of mashir Jumo recorded in main case as well as in this case from which it appears that statement recorded in one case of this mashir appears to have been copied out transferred to other case and he has not been examined independently in the present case. Therefore in view of the cases reported in PLD 19761 Lah 1446, PLJ 1975 Kar 507 and PLD 1983 Lah. 312, the statement of Jumo has no evidentiary value. In these circumstances the case is remanded back for re-trial and learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide it on merits and according to law.