ADAM KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge, Lakki, under the Arms Ordinance. The appellant was convicted for the alleged possession of an unlicensed .30 bore pistol, which the police claimed to have recovered from him during a pursuit. The appellant denied the recovery, asserting that the weapon was actually recovered from another individual. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the nature and bore of the recovered weapon to sustain a conviction under the Arms Ordinance. Upon review, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce an arms expert report or a report from the police armourer to verify the bore or the nature of the weapon. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge, with the Court emphasizing the necessity of expert verification in arms possession cases.
- Is a conviction under the Arms Ordinance sustainable when the prosecution fails to produce an expert report regarding the nature and bore of the recovered weapon?
- Does the absence of an armourer's report regarding the weapon's specifications constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case for illegal arms possession?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ABDUR RAUF KHAN LUGHMANI, J.--On 13-1-1997 at 13-30 hours, in order to arrest accused in case F.I.R. No,14, dated 13-1-1997 under section 302/34, P.P.C., the local police blocked the road near Paharkhel. In the meantime, two persons were seen coming. The police party after hot pursuit arrested them. The persons disclosed their names as Rasool Khan and Adam Khan, appellant, herein. Out of latter's possession, the police party allegedly recovered one .30 bore pistol with '30 live rounds. He was accordingly, arrested in the case and a case under section 13, Arms Ordinance was registered against him, vide F.I.R. No,15, dated 13-1-1997.
2. After the completion of usual police investigation, challan was put in Court. The trial Court at the end of trial, convicted the appellant under section 13, Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to undergo three years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default to further S.I. For six months. The appellant/convict has now filed the instant appeal challenging the validity of his conviction/sentence recorded by the learned Speical Judge, Lakki, dated 6-11-1998.
3. The prosecution case is that recovery of .30 bore pistol was made from the appellant. On the other hand the appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the recovery of the said pistol and in fact said that the same was recovered from one Izzat Khan. In support of prosecution case, there is no arms expert report regarding bore of the pistol. Even there is no report of Armourer of the Police Department. In these circumstances, the nature of the arm recovered from the appellant has not been determined. Reliance is placed at PLJ 1995 Pesh. 176 and PLD 1994 Lahore 93.
4. This being the position, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to determine nature of the arms i,e, its bore etc. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge, Lakki is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.