MUHAMMAD HASHIM vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, on the ground that the petitioner faced separate trials for the same occurrence—one for attempted murder under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and another for the possession of an unlicensed firearm. The petitioner argued that the separate trials could lead to conflicting judgments if he were acquitted in the attempted murder case despite evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the argument regarding the potential for conflicting judgments in separate trials for related offences has not been accepted by the superior courts of Pakistan or the Privy Council. The Court held that separate trials for distinct offences arising from the same occurrence are permissible and do not inherently create a legal conflict requiring the consolidation of proceedings or the quashing of a conviction. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal.
- Can an accused be subjected to separate trials for an offence under the Arms Ordinance and an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code arising from the same occurrence?
- Does the possibility of conflicting judgments in separate trials for related offences invalidate a conviction in one of those trials?
- Section 13-E, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.--- In this petition for leave to appeal the petitioner's conviction under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance and somewhat heavy punishment thereunder, the plea raised is that it was allegedly a composite offence. The petitioner was alleged to have fired a pistol at his adversary. The weapon was recovered from him and he was arraigned for separate trials for separate offences--one for attempted murder and the other for having kept the illicit arm without licence.
2. The learned counsel has contended that the other trial for offence under section 307 PPC has not yet concluded and if the petitioner is acquitted therein despite the corroboratory evidence regarding recovery of the weapon of offence, this would end in conflict of judgments as a result of the two trials relating to the same occurrence. This view was not upheld by the Privy Council in cases coming from various colonies including one from Malaysia. The superior Courts of Pakistan also have not accepted this view. For example in slightly different circumstances, see Muhammad v. Hammad Raza, C.S.P. Commissioner, Sargodha Division PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lah. 692. Accordingly, there is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal, is refused.