IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
 
 
JAIL PETITION NO.36 OF 2016 
(Against the judgment of the Lahore 
High Court, Lahore dated 15.12.2015 
passed 
in 
Criminal 
Appeal 
No. 
772/2013) 
 
 
 
Muhammad Yaqoob 
… Petitioner 
 
 
 
Versus 
The State  
… Respondent 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner  
: 
Mr. Saeed Khurshid Ahmed, ASC  
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For the State  
: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Addl.P.G. Punjab 
 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
21.04.2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI,J:- The 
petitioner was convicted in a case bearing FIR No. 10/2013 dated 
16.01.2013 registered with police station Kallur Kot, District 
Bhakkar. 
2. 
 
As per allegations contained in the crime report, it was 
alleged that the petitioner had connection with a terrorist 
organization and he is in possession of ammunition which can be 
recovered. Consequently, raiding party was constituted which 
raided the premises of the petitioner who led to recovery of four 
Russian made hand grenades and four detonators which were kept 
Jail Petition No. 36 of 2016 
-:2:-
in a bag and the same was concealed in an oven adjacent to eastern 
wall of the house. The petitioner was taken into custody and during 
the course of proceedings, the accusation against the petitioner was 
found to be correct and as such report in terms of section 173 Cr.P.C. 
was submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner 
was charge sheeted by the learned trial court vide order dated 
04.04.2013. The petitioner denied the same and claimed trial. 
Prosecution led five prosecution witnesses to substantiate the 
allegation against the petitioner. After recording of the statements of 
prosecution witnesses, the petitioner made a statement in terms of 
section 342 Cr.P.C. During the statement made by the petitioner he 
opted not to appear under section 340 Cr.P.C. in disproof of the 
allegation levelled against him, however he produced defence 
evidence of one Maqbool son of Ahmad Din, who appeared as DW.1. 
3. 
 
The learned trial court after taking into consideration 
the statements of prosecution witnesses, statement of petitioner 
found the accusation coming through the source which is confidence 
inspiring and as such convicted the petitioner under section 4 of the 
Explosive 
Substance 
Act 
1908, 
thereby 
sentenced 
him 
to 
imprisonment for life. The learned trial court further found that the 
petitioner has also committed an offence falling within the ambit of 
section 7(g) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, hence he was further 
convicted for five years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine to the tune 
of Rs.50,000/-, however, benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was 
extended in favour of the petitioner.  
4. 
 
The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 772/2013 
before the learned Lahore High Court Lahore which met the same 
Jail Petition No. 36 of 2016 
-:3:-
fate vide judgment dated 15.12.2015 while maintaining the 
sentences inflicted upon by the learned trial court. 
5. 
 
The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be saddled 
with the responsibility of keeping explosive substance in his 
possession as at the time of raid he was empty handed and perhaps 
he was not in a constructive knowledge regarding the possession of 
explosive substance which ultimately was taken into consideration 
by both the learned courts and the petitioner was convicted. Further 
contends that perusal of the definition provided under section 3 sub-
section 1 (a)(iv) of the Arms Ordinance 1965, the “grenade’ is part of 
the Arms Ordinance and do not fall within the definition of Explosive 
Substance Act.  Contends that the application of section 7(g) of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 is not substantiated from the facts and 
circumstances as it is not case of terrorism because for that it is 
mandatory that the petitioner must be having nexus with some 
proscribed religious organization. Learned counsel has further 
argued that in fact the prosecution has failed to substantiate the 
case against the petitioner as the witnesses of recovery are at 
variance regarding the place from where petitioner was arrested. 
6. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
gone through the record. 
7. 
 
It is an admitted fact that the opening sentence of the 
crime report clearly reflects that the petitioner is active member of 
proscribed religious organization and as such in pursuance of 
information after constituting raiding party; the premises of 
Jail Petition No. 36 of 2016 
-:4:-
petitioner were raided. During course of proceedings of the raiding 
party, the petitioner led to recovery of not only four grenades but 
also four detonators which is spelled out from the record especially 
when the Bomb Disposal Officer came there for defusing the 
aforesaid ammunition which was recovered and was found 
explosive in nature. The detail mentioned by the Bomb Disposal Unit 
reflects a lot regarding the genuineness of the raid and recovery 
effected from the premises owned by the petitioner. The arguments 
of the learned counsel that in fact the recovered articles do not 
comes within the ambit of Explosive Substance Act, is not of any 
avail, rather the same seems to be absurd in nature. The learned 
counsel while arguing the matter has only advanced the case up to 
the extent of recovery of “grenades”. The other article in the shape of 
detonator was also recovered which ultimately if considered 
conjointly it comes within the definition of explosive substance. The 
definition of the same reflects that any material which if utilized 
results into explosion comes with the definition of explosive 
substance. Section 2 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 is reproduced 
as under:- 
“2. Definition of “explosive substance”.--- In this Act the 
expression "explosive substance" shall be deemed to include 
any materials for making any explosive substance; also any 
apparatus, machine implement or material used, or intended 
to be used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any 
explosion in or with any explosive substance; also any part of 
any such apparatus, machine or implement.” 
 
Bare perusal of the definition reflects that explosive substance shall 
be deemed to be any material which is used or attended to be used 
for causing any explosion which could endanger the life.  There is no 
Jail Petition No. 36 of 2016 
-:5:-
second cavil to this proposition that the recovery of four grenades 
and detonators are material which could explode and utilized for the 
explosion so it comes within the definition of explosive substance. 
Otherwise,  the nature of the ammunition recovered from the 
petitioner bring in the mind of a person of ordinary prudence that the 
utilization of  such like articles cannot be retained except for only 
one purpose which is clearly alleged against the petitioner and same 
has been taken into consideration by the learned trial court as well 
as learned High Court.  It is strange enough to mention here that the 
petitioner opted to adduce defence evidence during the course of trial 
before learned trial court but he did not opt to appear himself as a 
witness under section 340 Cr.P.C to disproof the allegation against 
him. A person who do not opt to appear for his own defence to brush 
aside the prosecution evidence while availing legal recourse in the 
shape of statement under section 340 Cr.P.C. rather produce a 
witness in his defence, the statement of such witness has been 
taken into consideration by us and found to be nothing but an 
afterthought reason being that this witness had never appeared 
before the investigating officer during the course of investigation of 
this case in the defence of the petitioner.  
8. 
 
In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above 
while analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses 
and while evaluating the probative value of the same, if juxtaposed 
with the evidence adduced by the defence, we found that the 
evidence adduced by the prosecution is straight-forward, confidence 
inspiring and while satisfying all the legal requirements to prove the 
Jail Petition No. 36 of 2016 
-:6:-
case to the hilt, resulting into dismissal of petition before this Court. 
As a consequence, the same is dismissed. 
9. 
 
Leave to appeal is refused. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad,  
21.04.2020 
Approved for reporting. 
Athar 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
