AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 172 wordsHeard Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
Heard Md. Hatim, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
Arguments of the petitioner has already been concluded and today the matter was fixed for argument of the State.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that argument in connection with Section 25(2) and Section 9(1) (a) (i) of the Arms Act 1959 was never raised by the petitioners at any stage, even in the memo of petition, this plea has not been raised. Learned counsel further submits that even the charge was not framed under the Sections for which argument has been advanced by the petitioners. Learned counsel has submitted that so far as merits of the case is concerned, there are consistent finding of facts recorded by the learned courts below and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and therefore they do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Arguments concluded.
Order reserved.