PESHAWAR, Oct 29: The Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991 (SIAA)   became ineffective in the province on Monday when the Peshawar High Court issued a ruling about the non-issuance of an important notification by the federal government.

The court’s single bench, comprising PHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, ruled that under section 4 of the act, it was binding on the federal government to issue a notification, announcing an amnesty period for the surrender of illicit arms.

The court also ruled that unless a notification was issued by the government, a person having illicit arms could not be held responsible under the act.

The bench allowed bail to four applicants, arrested under the SIAA, on condition of furnishing two sureties each of Rs100,000.

The applicants — Naik Akhter, Hameed, Janas and Zainullah — were arrested by the Batagram police on the charge of possessing   kalashnikovs, hand grenades and other arms.

Their counsel, Ishtiaq Ibraheem argued before the court that under the SIAA, issuance of two notifications were vital, without which the act could not be applied in a specific area.  

He contended that the act should come into force under section 1(3) in such areas and on such date as the federal government might, on the recommendation of the respective provincial government, by notification in the official gazette, declare.

He stated that another important notification, whose issuance was binding on the federal government, was under section 4(1) of the act, through which a notification had to be issued, informing the general public about surrender of illicit arms in a specific period.

Section 4(1) of the act reads: “All persons in possession or control of any illicit arms shall surrender such arms within such time as is notified by the federal government to the deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner or officer-in-charge of a police station within whose jurisdiction such persons ordinarily reside or to such other authority as may be specified by the federal government by notification in the official gazette.”

The counsel argued that although a notification had been issued for extending the act to the NWFP, the notification about announcing an amnesty period had not been issued by the federal government due to which the act had become ineffective.

The court had earlier asked the government’s counsel to clarify position on Monday and assist the court on the point whether the notification had been issued or not. However, the state’s counsel could not produce the notification, confirming the point raised by the applicants’ counsel.

It is worth mentioning that for its de-weaponization drive, the government brought the SIAA out of the cold storage and has been booking people under the law.

Legal circles have termed the high court ruling a blow to the government’s campaign, claiming that accused arrested under the law were entitle to bail.