ANSAR AHMED vs THE STATE
The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which had upheld his conviction under the Arms Ordinance for the possession of a Kalashnikov, while slightly reducing his sentence and fine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the conviction on two primary grounds: first, that the prosecution failed to establish that the weapon was recovered from a place within the petitioner's exclusive possession; and second, that the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were not complied with during the recovery process. The Supreme Court found that these contentions raised substantial legal questions regarding the appreciation of evidence and procedural compliance in recovery cases. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the prosecution's evidence and the procedural requirements for recovery under the law.
- Does the failure to comply with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a recovery of a weapon?
- Must the prosecution prove exclusive possession of the premises where a weapon is recovered to sustain a conviction under the Arms Ordinance?
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of Lahore. High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3-4-1994, whereby Criminal Appeal No,162 of 1993 filed by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the conviction under section 13 of Arms Ordinance but his sentence was reduced from 5 years to 3 years and the fine was also reduced from Rs,30,000 to Rs,20,000.
2. In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the learned Judges of the High Court while upholding conviction and sentence of the petitioner failed to take into consideration that prosecution evidence with regard to recovery of Kalashnikov' did not show that the same was recovered from the place which was in the exclusive possession of the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C.
3. Were not followed by the prosecution while affecting the recovery of Kalashnikov. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case Muhammad Afzal v. The State (1983 SCMR 1). The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires examination and we grant leave to appeal, accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- MOHAMMAD HASSAN Versus State 2016 YLRN 106