Haji ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE and anothers
This criminal appeal was filed by an individual against the acquittal of the respondent, who had been charged with an offence under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance for carrying an unlicensed weapon. The appellant challenged the acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a private individual qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' entitled to file an appeal against an acquittal for an offence under the Arms Ordinance. The Court held that the essential ingredient of the offence is the absence of a license, not the mere possession or use of the weapon. Because the potential use of a weapon against an individual exists regardless of whether the weapon is licensed or unlicensed, an individual cannot claim to be aggrieved by the acquittal of a charge specifically concerning the lack of a license. The Court ruled that only the State can be the aggrieved party in such cases. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, establishing that private individuals lack standing to appeal acquittals for Arms Ordinance offences.
- Can a private individual file an appeal against an acquittal for an offence under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance?
- Who qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases involving the Arms Ordinance?
- Is an individual considered an 'aggrieved person' simply because a weapon could have been used against them?
- Section 13(d), Arms Ordinance
- Section 417(2-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Mrs. Shiraz Iqbal states that Mr. Lqbal Chaudhry, Advocate is busy before another Bench. The appeal has been filed by Mrs. Shiraz Iqbal herself and she is present. Engagement of Mr. Iqbal Chaudhry elsewhere is,' therefore, immaterial in this case.
2. The respondent No,2, Mehdi Hassan fated a trial before the 1st Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East, on a charge for commission of offence under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance i,e, for going armed with unlicensed - weapons. The charge could not be proved by the prosecution and consequently, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused/respondent No,2. This acquittal has been called in question by the appellant Haji Abdul Sattar in this appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C.
3. This provision of the law authorises an aggrieved person to file an appeal against the acquittal.
The most significant ingredient of an offence under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance is non- availability of licence of the weapon being carried. Carrying of weapon itself does not constitute this offence. It is only the non-existence of licence that makes the act an offence under this provision of law.
3-A. An individual cannot, therefore, claim himself to be an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. On the ground that the said weapon was used, or could have been used, against him, as this possibility would also exist, had there been a licensed weapon, but, in that case, there would be no offence under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance. In case of acquittal from a charge of an offence under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance, the State can only be the aggrieved party. No individual can be an aggrieved person in that case for the purpose of section 417(2-A), Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal, being filed by a person not authorised by law to do so, is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly.