IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT
SUKKUR
Criminal Jail Appeal No. D – 99 of 2018
Criminal Jail Appeal No. D – 100 of 2018
Criminal Jail Appeal No. D – 101 of 2018
Present;
Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Mahar
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
Appellants : Wali Muhammad and Shahnawaz
Through
Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed M.Junejo,
Advocate
(absent)
Respondent : The
State, through Mr. Abdul Rehman
Kolachi,
Deputy Prosecutor General
Date
of hearing : 18.04.2019
Date
of decision: 18.04.2019
JUDGMENT
IRSHAD ALI SHAH,
J:- The appellants by way of captioned Criminal Jail
Appeals have impugned judgment dated 31.08.2018 passed by learned Judge,
Anti-Terrorism Court Ghotki at Mirpur Mathelo, whereby they have been convicted
and sentenced as under;
“Accused Shahnawaz
and Wali Muhammad for committing offence u/s 4(b) of Explosive Substance Act,
1908, R.I for 10 years
Accused Shahnawaz
and Wali Muhammad for committing offence of having Explosive Substance, u/s
7[1] (ff) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, R.I for 14 years.
Accused Shahnawaz
for committing offence u/s 23(1)(a) Sindh Arms Act, 2013, imprisonment for 07
years and fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and in case of
non-payment of fine, he shall serve S.I for 4 months more in prison.
Accused Shahnawaz
for committing offence u/s 24 Sindh Arms Act, 2013, imprisonment for 05 years
and also directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), in case
of non-payment of fine, he shall serve S.I for 4 months more in prison.”
2. It is the case
of the prosecution that the appellants were found to be in possession of the
Explosive Substances and firearms, for that they were booked and reported upon
by the police. At trial, the appellants did not plead guilty to the charge and
the prosecution to prove it, examined complainant SIP Abdul Waheed Bhutto and
his witnesses and then closed the side. The appellants during course of their
examination u/s 342 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution allegation by pleading
innocence, they did not examine any one in their defence or themselves on oath.
On hearing of learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court convicted
and sentenced the appellants by way of the judgment, which is impugned by the
appellants before this Court through captioned appeals, those now are being
disposed of by this Court through single judgment.
3. At the very outset, it is contended
by learned DPG for the State that no question with regard to the reports of
Ballistic/ Forensic Expert have been put to any of the appellants during course
of his/their examination u/s 342 Cr.P.C, such omission according to him could
not be overlooked and the record did not speak of availability of the sanction
/ consent of the Provincial Government which is necessary for proceeding of the
case like the present one in terms of Section 7 of Explosive Substances Act,
1908. By contending so, he sought for remand of the matter for rewriting of the
judgment by learned trial Court.
4. None has come forward on
behalf of the appellants to rebut the contention raised by learned DPG for the
State.
5. In view of above, the
impugned judgment is set-aside with direction to learned trial Court to rewrite
the same after curing the defects which are pointed out by learned DPG for the
State preferably within one month time and off-course by providing chance of
hearing to all the concerned, as is mandated by Article 10-A of the Constitution
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. Instant captioned appeals
are disposed of in the above terms.
Judge
Judge