PIRANO vs The STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 13-E of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for possession of an unlicensed gun. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when the prosecution failed to demand the production of a licence and omitted to put incriminating questions regarding the absence of a licence to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that keeping a gun is not an offence by itself unless the person in possession fails to produce a licence upon demand, and that any circumstance weighing with the court for determining guilt must be put to the accused for an explanation. The court laid down the principle that failure to question the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the lack of a licence vitiates the conviction, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.
- Is the mere possession of a gun an offence under the law without proof of the absence of a licence?
- Whether failure to question the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the lack of a licence renders a conviction unsustainable?
- Must the prosecution demand the production of a licence before a person can be penalized for possessing an unlicensed weapon?
- Section 13-E, West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Agha Ali Hyder, J.--The appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, for an offence under section 13-E of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance of 1965, and sentence to undergo R. I. for two years. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, he has come in Appeal.
2. The prosecution story is that, on 26-4-1966, the appellant came to be arrested from his village in connection with a murder case. It is stated that he had volunteered to produce a gun. He had taken the police party inside the house and produced a . 12 bore single-barrelled gun from the roof.
As the appellant could not produce any licence, a case was registered against him under section 13-E, of the Arms Ordinance, which came to be challaned on 13-5-1966.
3. The appellant in his statement denied the allegations made against him.
4. Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant, did not advance any argument in this appeal presumably because the appellant had already undergone the sentence, which was concurrent with the sentence awarded in the main case. However, it is to be noted that the S. H. O., namely, Imam Din, did not choose to state that he had asked for the production of the licence. It is true, that Bagh the Masftir has deposed that the appellant, never produced any licence, but he need not have done it without any demand for the same. What is more no question had been put to the appellant in his statement at the trial or for that matter at the Court of Inquiry.
It goes without saying, that keeping of a gun by itself is not an offence. It become an offence only when some body in possession of the same does not have and cannot produce a licence therefor.
It is also an exiomatic principle of law, that if a question which weighs with the Court for the determination of guilt is not put to the accused and he is precluded from giving an explanation for the same, it must be totally ruled out of consideration. As the appellant was not asked to produce the licence and as no question about it was put to him at the trial under section 342, Cr. P. C., the con viction would not be sustainable. After all, it is, for the prosecution to establish their case, which cannot be said to have been done.
5. In this view of the matter, we will set aside the conviction and sentence and allow the Appeal. .
Cited by 7 cases
- MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs THE STATE 2003 YLR 2258
- Shaikh M. IQBAL vs THE STATE 2001 P Cr. L J 1792
- IQBAL BANO Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 2000 PCRLJ 779
- ASHIQUE HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 1992 P Cr. L J 1998
- WAZIR ALI QAZI Versus THE STATE 1997 PCRLJ 725
- MIRZA MASIH vs THE STATE 1992 MLD 573
- LAIQUR REHMAN vs THE STATE 1985 P Cr. L J 1224