[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Musarrat Hilali, JJ
KASHIF---Petitioner
Versus
IMRAN and another---Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 188-P of 2023, decided on 17th January, 2024.
(Against the judgment dated 10.11.2023 passed by the
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Misc. (BA) No.3997-P of 2023)
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 395---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Dacoity---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---FIR stated that three sub-machine guns and one pistol, gold ornaments and mobile phones were stolen when the dacoity was committed---In view of the fact that the description of the petitioner (accused) was not mentioned in the FIR, it brought into question the identification parade---None of the stolen goods were recovered from the petitioner which made the present case one of further inquiry---Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and petitioner was granted bail.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 9, 25 & 184(3)---Arms Rules, 1924, Sched. 1 [since repealed]---Prohibited bore weapons, license for---Issuing authority---Discrimination in issuing licenses---During hearing of a petition filed by the petitioner (accused) seeking bail in a dacoity case, the Supreme Court asked the Investigating Officer ('IO') whether he had inquired from the complainant or the owner of the stolen firearms to produce their licenses and the Supreme Court was informed that the same was not done---To establish that his stolen weapons were licensed the complainant produced a piece of paper issued by a Deputy Inspector General of Police, which purportedly was a license of a sub-machine gun (SMG) which was a prohibited bore weapon---Supreme Court observed that notifications were also issued by the government exempting the requirement of obtaining licenses or permitting licenses for prohibited bore weapons to certain categories of persons, including Chief Justices, Judges, Ministers, Parliamentarians, as mentioned in Schedule I of the Arms Rules, 1924 (since repealed)---Supreme Court further observed that the present case raised the following questions; first, under what legal authority had the Deputy Inspector General of Police, issued the document which purported to be a license to carry an SMG, which was a prohibited bore weapon?; second, whether licenses of SMG and other prohibited bore weapons could be issued?; third, if the answer to second question was in the affirmative, the applicable law and procedure, and the person(s) who could issue exemptions/ licenses?; fourth, the number of licenses, including permits, issued with regard to SMGs and other prohibited bore weapons?; fifth, the approximate number of SMGs and other prohibited bore weapons in private use in the country?; sixth, whether exempting certain categories of persons or granting them the right to obtain licenses for SMGs and other prohibited bore weapons accorded with Article 25 of the Constitution, which mandates that all citizens are equal before the law?; and seventh, whether enabling the easy availability of SMGs and other prohibited bore weapons accords with Article 9, the Fundamental Right to life guaranteed by the Constitution?---Since the present matter prima facie was one of public importance with regard to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, including Articles 9 & 25 of the Constitution, therefore, the Supreme Court directed office to make a separate file and title it 'Sub Machine Guns and other Prohibited Bore Weapons' and register it as a constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and the same be placed for consideration of the Committee constituted under Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.
Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Complainant in person.
Altaf Khan, Additional A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State.
