Munir-Ul-Haq vs The State, Etc.
This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, following a trial where he was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner was convicted based on an alleged recovery of a 7-MM rifle during his physical remand in a separate murder case. The core legal question before the High Court was whether a conviction under the Arms Ordinance can be sustained when the alleged weapon of offence was never produced or exhibited before the trial court. Upon review, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to produce the 7-MM rifle as case property during the trial proceedings. The Deputy Prosecutor General conceded this factual omission. Consequently, the Court held that the non-production of the weapon of offence is fatal to the prosecution's case. The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner, establishing the principle that proof of recovery of the weapon is a mandatory prerequisite for sustaining a conviction under the Arms Ordinance.
- Can a conviction under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 be sustained if the alleged weapon of offence is not produced or exhibited during the trial?
- Is the non-production of the weapon of offence considered fatal to the prosecution's case in an arms possession trial?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 10-A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.05.2010 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 and sentenced to undergo 3 years'R. I. With benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner was arrested in case F.I.R. No. 82, dated 9.10.2003, under Sections 302, 452/34, P.P.C, and during his physical remand he made a disclosure of weapon of offence and led to the recovery of 7MM rifle from his house on 9.10.2003 whereafter separate F.I.R. No. 108, dated 31.08.2003, under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, XX of 1965 was lodged against the petitioner. After formal institution of F.I.R, the investigation was conducted and report under Section 173, Cr.P.C, was submitted. The petitioner was charged under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, XX of 1965, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial, whereupon the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses namely Mukhtar Hussain, SI as PW-1 who recorded the F.I.R, on the basis of complaint Ex.PA; Shah Muhammad as PW-2 who was recovery witness; Fateh Muhammad as PW-3 and Shakil Ahmad, Inspector as PW-4. PW-2 described the manners in which the accused got recovered 7- MM Rifle. PW-3 is a private witness of recovery whereas PW-4 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo 3 years' R.I. Which conviction was upheld by the learned Appellate Court Hence this criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the trial 7- MM rifle as case property was neither produced nor exhibited. The cross examination was not allowed as this was a jail trial in which the petitioner was to be granted permission to appoint any defence counsel at State expense; that the right of fair trial under Article 10(A) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was not provided.
4. The learned D.P.G, after consulting the record also admitted before the Court that no case property in the form of 7-MM rifle was ever produced before the Trial Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The record reveals non-production of the 7-MM rifle which fact is fatal for the prosecution.
Obviously, when no recovery of weapon of offence is proved the conviction under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 196S cannot be maintained and sentence cannot be awarded. In this view of the Matter this criminal revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled in this case.