ALI NAWAZ vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal proceeding wherein the applicant, Ali Nawaz, was convicted under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 by the trial court, which conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge, Dadu. The applicant then approached the Sindh High Court through a criminal revision or appeal. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the conviction based on alleged material contradictions in evidence, absence of private witnesses during arrest, and the applicant's prior acquittal in a connected case, alongside the suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the proceedings. The court heard the submissions of the learned counsel regarding the merits of the case and the period already spent in jail. The High Court decided to admit the matter for regular hearing, issue notice, and suspend the operation of the impugned judgment of the appellate court, granting bail/suspension of sentence subject to the furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000 and a P.R. bond.
- Whether the sentence of a convicted person can be suspended during the pendency of an appeal when arguable points regarding material contradictions in evidence are raised?
- Does the absence of private witnesses at the time of an alleged arrest from a public place warrant the suspension of a conviction?
- Whether the prior acquittal of an accused in a connected case affects the validity of a conviction under the Arms Ordinance?
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance
ORDER
1. MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.- Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. 3 & 4. Learned counsel submits that the accused was arrested on 11-7-2003 under the charge of 13- D of the Arms Ordinance within the area of Police Station Rukkan. He was granted bail by the trial Court but finally he was convicted for one year sentence and fine Rs,5,000 by its order dated 10-5- 2006 and was remanded to jail. He further states that against the said order appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Dadu, by his judgment dated 27-6-2006 and during that period he remained in Jail and so far he was confined in the Jail for about three months.
3. ' Learned counsel contended that there was no private witness while the accused was allegedly arrested from the bus stand. He further submitted that there is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which were not appreciated by the learned trial Court or even by the appellate Court and that the accused was also falsely involved in another case, related to this case but he was acquitted from that case.
4. Admit. Notice. Meanwhile the operation of the impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge dated 27 6-2006 is suspended subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Fifty thousand) and P.R. Bond in the' like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.