7. Punishments. (1) Whoever contravenes the
provisions of Section 4 or Section 5 or fails to surrender illicit arms shall--
(a) in respect of illicit arms defined in
sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (a) of Section 2, be punished with
imprisonment for life and forfeiture of property, both movable and immovable;
(b) in respect of illicit arms defined in
sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of Section 2, be punished with imprisonment for
life or with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years
having regard to the antecedents of the accused; and
(c) in respect of illicit arms defined in
sub-clause (v) of Clause (a) of Section 2, be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than three years,
having regard to the antecedents of the accused;
(2) Any illicit arms in respect of which a person
is convicted and sentenced under sub-section (1) shall stand forfeited to the
Federal Government.
(3) Any conveyance used for the transportation of
any illicit arms shall also be liable to confiscation.
Explanation. In this
section, "conveyance" includes a vessel, aircraft, vehicles or
animal.
COMMENTARY
Prosecution failed to
prove necessary ingredients of offences punishable under S. 7 of Surrender of
Illicit Arms act, 1991, conviction and sentence recorded against accused not
sustainable. Accused acquitted. PLD 2007 SC 5.
Possession of illicit
weapons by citizens may be hazardous to good health and security of a society
and their use a menace but at the same time an illicit utilization of a law for
curbing such a peril may be no less harmful to the legal regime of the same
society as well as to the constitutional rights of its citizens. PLD 2002 Lah.
36.
No evidence was led by
the prosecution to prove that the gun recovered from the possession of accused
was the same which he had in possession and had failed to surrender on or
before 31.7.91. Conviction set aside. 1993 PCr.LJ 1010.
Appreciation of evidence.
No witness from the general public. Nothing was available on record to show
that the pistol recovered had been in possession of the accused prior to the
target date which had been fixed for surrender of illicit arms. Provisions of
S. 7 of the Act were not attracted. Conviction and sentence set aside. 2003 YLR
306.
Appreciation of
evidence. Murasila specifically mentioned that on search of the coach, a person
having a grenade in his right hand was deboarded and on his further search, .30
bore pistol and other explosive material were recovered. Person having other
explosive material in plastic bag, would be having a grenade in his hand, did
not stand to reason. Nothing on record that the alleged 30 bore pistol was
serviceable and the rounds recovered were alive. Non-association of public
persons despite their availability. Held : Case against accused was totally of
no evidence. Conviction and sentence set aside. 2005 YLR 117.
Special Court
constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act,
1975, could not have awarded enhanced punishment u/S. 7 of the Surrender of
Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991, as the same did not find mention in the schedule
of the Act. Conviction was set aside. 1993 P.Cr.L.J. 2308; 1994 MLD 598.
Public witness had filed
an affidavit denying the recovery of Klashnikov at the instance of accused who
even otherwise was resident of a far off village. Police witnesses' evidence
was discrepant and did not prove the prosecution case. Number of persons of the
locality had admittedly gathered at the time of recovery but no explanation for
not having joined them in investigation was available on record. Accused was
acquitted in circumstances. 1993 PCr.LJ. 2596.
Record did not show that
the illicit arm and ammunition recovered from the accused were the same which
he had failed to surrender during the period notified by the Govt. u/S. 4 of
the Act. Necessary ingredients of S. 7, therefore, was not proved. Accused was
acquitted. 1994 PCr.LJ 88.
Conviction/sentence would
be unsustainable when defence appears more probable and casts doubts on
prosecution case in such case, convict would be entitled to acquittal by having
benefit of doubt. NLR 1994 Cr.LJ. 499.
Mens rea (keeping of
illicit arms for illicit purpose) would be missing in presence of possibility
that local administration had itself allowed villagers to keep arms in view of
desperate actions of desperate party. Convict in such case would be entitled to
acquittal by having benefit of doubt.
Appreciation of evidence.
Possibility of the recovered sten gun having been planted in
the house of the accused and the raid got conducted due
to the enmity of the police officer who was a co-villager of the accused, could
not be ruled out. Accused was acquitted on benefit of doubt. 1994 PCr.LJ 512.
Benefit of doubt. Public
witness declared hostile. Possibility of the Kalshnikov having been planted on
the accused could not be ruled out. Accused acquitted. 1994 PCr.LJ 1269.
Appreciation of
evidence. Voluntary surrender of Klashnikov. Intention not to commit any
offence but was to help the law enforcing agencies. Provisions of S. 7 were not
attracted. Accused was acquitted. 1994 PCr.LJ 1321.
Appreciation of
evidence. Recovery of pistol and cartridges. Recovery having been effected from
a very thickly populated area in a day time, it was necessary for the
prosecution to have joined public witnesses u/S. 103 Cr.P.C.. Failure to prove
that the arms were the same which the accused had in his possession and had
failed to surrender on or before the date specified by the Govt. for such
purpose. Conviction/sentence set aside and accused acquitted. 1994 PCr.LJ 2527.
Registration of case
against accused on 11.7.2002 under S. 7(b)(c) of Surrender of Illicit Arms Act,
1991. Trial before Addl. Sessions Judge. Accused's application seeking transfer
of case to Magistrate for holding trial was dismissed. Accused filed revision
before High Court. Held : FIR showed that alleged recovery of illicit weapons
from possession of accused had taken place on 11.7.2002 and prosecution was not
possessed of any material that the said weapons were also in possession of
accused on or before 20.6.2002 which was the target date fixed under the
provisions of Act, 1991. Accused in circumstance, could not be prosecuted under
Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 for possession of illegal weapons allegedly
recovered from him on 11.7.2002 but could only be tried for relevant offence
under West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 by a Magistrate. High Court directed
Addl. Sessions Judge to transfer record of case to Magistrate competent to try
alleged offence against accused. 2004 MLD 150.
No sealed parcel of
alleged recovered weapon was made at spot. It has also been conceded that
recovered weapon has not been sent to any Arms expert to ascertain whether
indeed it was fire-arm weapon or not. Offence is punishable with imprisonment
for 14 years. In these circumstances, such laxity on part of police cannot be
tolerated. Although recovery has been
effected from public place yet none from public was associated in recovery
proceedings nor any explanation has been given as to why provisions of Section
103 Cr.P.C. were violated. Allegation against petitioner needs further probe
and inquiry within purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. PLJ 2001
Cr.C. (
There is absolutely
nothing on record showing previous conviction of petitioner or any other
antecedents calling for award of maximum punishment. Case of petitioner cannot
be held to be one falling within ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497
Cr.P.C. because Statute itself provides that quantum of imprisonment is to be
regulated by antecedents of accused. Apart from this, while considering an
application for bail, Courts are not supposed to keep in view maximum sentence
provided by relevant law but one likely to be entailed by facts and
circumstances of case. Bail granted. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (