ZAMIRUL HAQUE Versus THE STATE Mohammad Sharif Chauhan , Hanif Zahid for A.-G. for the State.

Zamir‑ul‑Haq son of Abdul Haq, resident of Barkatpura, Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad, had been tried and convicted under section 13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, by Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, vide judgment, dated 9‑12‑1987, which was upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on appeal vide judgment, dated 5‑3‑1988 but reduced the sentence to six months' R.I. Feeling dissatisfied, the convict /appellant has filed the instant revision.

2. The allegations are that on 29‑8‑1987, the petitioner was found occupying a seat in a bus. At Madina Chowk he was searched by a police party and an unlicensed .32 bore revolver, loaded with four cartridges, was recovered from the fold of his Shalwar, and a case under Arms Ordinance was registered at Police Station Lory Stand Lahore. After usual investigation the petitioner was challaned to Court.

3. A charge under section 13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 was framed against the petitioner on 9‑12‑1987, to which he pleaded guilty saying that it was licenced revolver belonging to his brother. On the basis of this plea, learned trial Magistrate convicted him. He preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge. It was argued before the Appellate Court that the charge .was defective, therefore, the petitioner deserved acquittal. Learned Appellate Court found that the defect in the charge was curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. and dismissed the appeal, but the sentence was reduced. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner has filed this revision.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has reiterated the objection raised before the Appellate Court. He argued that the language of the charge did not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner and as such the admission of allegations made by the petitioner does not, therefore, make him liable under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance.

5. I have examined the charge wherein it is stated that a revolver with live cartridges was recovered from the petitioner but it is not stated that he was possessing it without a valid licence. Obviously possessing an arm without licence constitutes an offence under section 13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, therefore, omission to mention in the charge that the petitioner was keeping/ possessing the arms without a valid licence, not only, had prejudiced the petitioner but his plea of guilty in the circumstances also not rendered him liable under section 13 of Arms Ordinance XX of 1965. Consequently, I would accept this revision and set aside his conviction and sentence. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

S.G.D./Z‑49/L Revision allowed