IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

 

 

CR. APPEAL NO.379 of 2023

 

APPELLANT                            :           Hamid Khan  

                                                            Through Mr. Muhammad Farooq

                                                            Advocate

 

RESPONDENT             :           The State

                                                            Through Syed Meral Shah Bukhari,

                                                            Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

 

Date of hearing                      :           14.11.2023

.-.-.-.-.-.

 

J U D G M E N T

 

Omar Sial, J.: On 01.01.2023, Hamid Khan, the appellant in these proceedings, was arrested by S.I. Yar Mohammad for making two aerial fires from a pistol. The police seized the pistol. Hamid claimed it was a licensed weapon owned by his friend Mehar Khan. Two cases were registered against Hamid Khan. F.I.R. No. 2 of 2023 under sections 324 and 337-H(ii) and F.I.R. No. 3 of 2023 under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The case arising from F.I.R. No. 2 of 2023 was disposed of in C Class.

2.         The appellant pleaded not guilty to a charge under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and claimed trial. After the trial, the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, sentenced him to seven years in prison and a fine of Rs. 50,000, and if he did not pay the fine, he would have to remain in prison for six months.

3.         Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that he will not argue on merits but that, keeping in mind the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the one he has already undergone. Learned Additional Prosecutor General rendered his no objection if the conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to the one the appellant had already undergone.

4.         Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that a lapse occurred on the part of the defence that Mehar Khan was not examined at trial. He blamed this lapse indirectly on the financial distress of the appellant’s family. Be that as it may, it seems that the appellant has no criminal record and that his firing in the air was not with the view of committing a crime or hurting anybody. He seems remorseful for his acts. The weapon in question has been seized and shall be disposed of in line with the directions of the learned trial court contained in the impugned judgment. The appellant has learned his lesson hard and repents what he did.

5.         Given the above, the appeal is dismissed; however, the sentence is modified to the one the appellant has already undergone. The fine amount is reduced to Rs. 5,000 or 2 weeks of simple imprisonment if he does not pay the fine.

 

JUDGE