RIAZ ALI vs The STATE
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The Trial Court had initially sentenced the petitioner to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which the High Court subsequently modified to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a reduced fine. The petitioner challenges the conviction on the grounds that the evidence presented by the prosecution contained material contradictions that were not properly appreciated by the lower courts. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish the absence of a license for the recovered weapon, specifically a Kalashnikov, relying on established precedents regarding the necessity of such proof. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the contentions raised regarding the evidentiary appraisal and the legal requirement to prove the lack of a license, granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Does the failure to ask whether a petitioner possessed a license for a recovered weapon constitute a ground for leave to appeal?
- Can a conviction under the Arms Ordinance be challenged on the basis of unappreciated contradictions in witness testimony?
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance
ORDER
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---In this case the petitioner is convicted for offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance and was sentenced by the Trial Court to R.I. For seven years and fine of Rs.10,000 or in default R.I. For one year. On appeal the High Court, after appraising the evidence, has agreed with the conclusion and dismissed the appeal with modification that sentence is reduced to R.I. For three years and fine is also reduced to Rs.2,000 or in default further S.I. For six months is imposed.
2. Contentions are raised that there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses which have not properly been appreciated and secondly that no question was asked whether the petitioner had licence for the Klashnikov. In support of the second contention reliance is placed on the cases reported as Sajjad Ahmad and another v. The State (1992 SCMR 408) and Ashique Hussain v. The State (1992 PCr.LJ 1998).
3. Leave is granted to consider the evidence brought on the record in the light of the contentions raised above. Petitioner is released on ball in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.