JAMIL AHMED vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the illegal possession of a Kalashnikov and live cartridges, resulting in a sentence of three years' simple imprisonment. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court, acting as a Juvenile Court, erred by failing to consider the provisions of Section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, regarding the potential release of a first-time juvenile offender on probation. The High Court held that the trial court was under a mandatory legal obligation to consider the applicability of Section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, before finalizing the sentence. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the sentencing order and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to specifically evaluate the appellant's eligibility for probation under the aforementioned section. The key principle established is that Juvenile Courts must proactively consider the reformative and probationary provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, when sentencing child offenders, rather than automatically imposing custodial sentences.
- Is a Juvenile Court under a legal obligation to consider the provisions of Section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, before sentencing a child offender?
- Can a case be remanded to the trial court for the specific purpose of considering probation under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
- Section 13(e), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 11, Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER
1. AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J.--- The appellant has been convicted under section 13(e) of Arms Ordinance, 1965 to three years' S.I. With fine of Rs,5,000 in default thereof to further undergo one month's S.I. By Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta with the powers of Court under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 on finding him guilty for keeping in possession one kalashnikov and live cartridges without licence.
2. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset contended that while convicting appellant the learned Judge should have taken into consideration section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 as to whether the appellant was entitled to be released on probation being first offender and a student but the learned Judge without considering section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 directed him to be sent to Juvenile Ward of the jail.
4. ' The learned Assistant Advocate-General though opposed the appeal on merits, however, submitted that the learned trial Court should have considered the provisions of section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
5. I have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the parties' learned counsel. It may be observed that under section 11 of the Juvenile Justice Ordinance, 2000 the Court on conclusion of an inquiry or trial notwithstanding anything contained in any law, if it thinks fit, can direct the child offender to be released on probation for good conduct and place such child under the security of guardian or any suitable person executing a bond or without surety as the Court may require for the good behaviour and well-being of the child for any period not exceeding the period of imprisonment awarded to such child and the Juvenile Court is under legal obligation to consider said provisions before recording any conviction but in the instant case the learned Juvenile Court did not adhere to the above said provisions; as such; with consent of the parties, I am inclined to remand the case to Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta with the powers of Court under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 to consider the provisions of section 11 of the Juvenile Justice system Ordinance, 2000 and pass an appropriate order in this behalf.
6. ' The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. The record of trial Court along with copy of this order be retransmitted to the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAHRUKH vs BASHIR AHMAD and anothers 2013 P Cr. L J 584