Hakim INAYAT ULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Hakim Inayat Ullah Khan, by the Special Court for Speedy Trial No. II, Lahore, for the offense of possessing an unlicensed .12 bore gun and failing to surrender it. The appellant was apprehended on January 14, 1992, and subsequently convicted under Section 7(c) of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, receiving a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the court was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential elements of the offense, specifically the failure to surrender the illicit weapon by the government-mandated deadline of July 31, 1991. Upon review, the court held that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that the weapon recovered from the appellant was the same illicit arm he was required to surrender by the specified date. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment establishes the principle that proof of the specific failure to surrender a weapon by the statutory deadline is a condition precedent for conviction under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991.
- Is proof of failure to surrender an illicit weapon by the government-mandated deadline a condition precedent for conviction under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991?
- Must the prosecution prove that the weapon recovered is the same illicit arm the accused failed to surrender by the statutory date?
- Section 7(c), Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991
- Section 4, Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991
' JUSTICE ABDUL MAJID TIWANA (MEMBER-II)--- Hakim Inayat Ullah appellant was tried by the learned Judge of Special Court for Speedy Trial No,II, Lahore, for having been found in possession of an unlicensed .12 bore gun alongwith 4 live cartridges when on 14-1-1992 he was apprehended by a police party headed by Mehrban Hussain Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Kundian at Paki Pull Canal as an accused wanted by the police in a murder case. On the conclusion of trial, he, vide judgment, dated 21-2-1992, was convicted under section 7(c) of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, and sentenced to seven years' R.I. For his failure to surrender it under section 4 of the said Act.
2. The appeal can be accepted on the short ground that no evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that the gun recovered from the possession of the appellant was the same which be had in possession and had failed to surrender on or before 31-7-1991, the date specified by the Government for the surrender of illicit arms. This was a condition precedent for his conviction and it was not satisfied.
3. This being so, the appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted. He should be released if not required in any other case.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ Versus THE STATE 2002 PLD 36
- AZAM ALI vs THE STATE 2002 MLD 544
- FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE 2002 MLD 533