2010 Y L R 2157(2)
[Quetta]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
SAMIULLAH ---Appellant
Versus
THE STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2009, decided on 12th January, 2010.
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) ---
----S. 13(e) ---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979),
S.17(2) ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.423 ---Possessing arms and Haraabah ---
Appreciation of evidence --Counsel for accused had contended that he did not want to press
appeal on merits, if the court while exercising powers under S.423, Cr.P.C. forego the
remaining period of sentence as accused had alr eady undergone 1/3rd of his sentence ---In the
present case though the accused was charged only for keeping in possession arms without any
legal or lawful title, permit or licence, and the quantum of sentence was also two years, but
record had revealed that accused was apprehended from the spot when he along with his co -
accused were snatching motorcycle from a person ---Allegation against accused, in
circumstances, was not simply in respect of illegal possession of arms, but major offence was
of Haraabah unde r S.17(2) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 ---Crime weapon was also in working condition as per Examination Report --
-Accused was further involved and booked in commission of major offence ---Lenient view
was not required t o be taken in favour of accused, in circumstances --Accused had failed to
point out asserted contradictions present in the evidence and any illegality in the judgment of
the Trial Court ---No interference, in circumstances was required to be made in the impu gned
order.
Muhammad Ibrahim Umar Lehri for the Appellant.
Abdullah Kurd for the State.
ORDER
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J .---Being aggrieved of judgment made on 14 -9-2009
made by Additional Sessions Judge -V, Quetta, whereby he has been convict ed under section
13-E Arms Ordinance, while sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years and fine of Rs.10,000, has filed instant appeal praying for setting aside of the
impugned order and he be acquitted of the charge. It is his contention that the evidence is not
considered in its true perspective, while recovery is not proved from his exclusive possession.
Requirement of section 103, Cr.P.C. is not complied. Despite material contradictions in the
statement of prosecution witnes ses, which were not considered, while benefit of the same
were not extended in his favour.
As per record an F.I.R. No.169 of 2008 Police Station, Saddar, Quetta was lodged against the
appellant, wherein it has' been reported that during patrolling when t he police personnel at
10-30 p.m. reached near Arbab Town, two persons were snatching motorcycles, on having
glance of police party they tried to escape, while one of them was apprehended, who on
interrogation described his name as Samiullah. On his body s earch a Megarove pistol bearing
No.17F7185 along with 4 live cartridges was recovered, which were taken into custody, on
demand the accused failed to produce any permit or license of the same, therefore, case under
section 13 -E Arms Ordinance was registere d. The other person made his escape good. On
completion of investigation challan was submitted, after framing of charge statements of
witnesses were recorded, while accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he
denied the allegations levelled against him.
During course of arguments it is contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to the
effect that he does not want to press the appeal on merits, if the court while exercising powers
under section 423 Cr.P.C. forego the remaining peri od of sentences he already undergo 1/3rd
of his punishment. The learned PG has no objection on the same.
Though this Court has the power to reverse the findings and sentence, acquit or discharge the
accused or reduce the sentence. Though in present case the charge is only in respect of
keeping in possession arms without any legal or lawful title, permit or license, while the
quantum of sentence is also two years. But perusal of the record reveals that the accused was
apprehended from the spot when he alon g with co -accused namely Rehmat were snatching
motorcycle from one Salman Ahmed. The co -accused succeeded to escape. Recovery of
crime weapon was made from possession of the accused. In respect of said crime F.I.R.
No.16 of 2008 was registered, thus in vie w of the same the allegation against the accused is
not simply in respect of illegal possession of arms, rather in present case the major offence is
of Haraabah under section 17(2) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood)
Ordinance -VI of 1979, while present case is interrelated with the same and registered under
section 13E of Arms Ordinance 1965. In above mentioned circumstances as the
appellant/accused was apprehended from the site while recovery of weapon used in
commission of offence was eff ected from his possession that too at the spot, further, the
crime weapon is also in working condition as per Examination Report present on record as
Exh.P/3 -B, he was further involved and booked in commission of a major offence. Thus in
the circumstances, lenient view is not required to be taken in favour of the appellant.
On merits the appellant though have asserted that the defence of appellant is not considered,
rather prosecution version is given overweight. Despite asserting the same the appellant h as
failed to point out the asserted contradictions present in the evidence. He has further failed to
point any illegality in the judgment. In the circumstances no interference is required to be
made in impugned order.
In view of above discussion instant appeal is hereby dismissed being without merits.
H.B.T./36/Q Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.