P L D 1955 Baluchistan 14 (PLP)

R. K. M. SAKER, J. C.

This revision petition has been submitted by the Crown under the provisions of section 435 read with section 439, Criminal P. C. with a prayer to enhance the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge in Baluchistan against the convict-respondent Abdul Latif. The facts of the case indicate that the convict-respondent is now undergoing six months' rigorous imprisonment as a result of his conviction by the learned Sessions judge for having committed an offence falling under the provisions of section 20 of the Arms Act. It appears that the convict respondent was found to be in possession of a number of pistols and other ammunition, for which he did not possess valid license. The learned Public Prosecutor, who appeared for the Crown, argued that the case was :of a very serious nature, in that the convict-respondent had published an article to the effect that he proposed to carry out robberies on the rich and that the sentence of six months' rigorous imprison ment was totally inadequate in view of the serious nature of the offence. The arms, which were recovered, were found to be concealed in a certain garage and in convicting the respondent- the learned Sessions judge came to the conclusion that he was guilty of the offence falling under the provisions of section 20 of the Arms Act and sentenced him accordingly. Learned counsel for the convict-respondent, however, argues that while he did not intend to contest the merits of the case, he felt that if the conviction under section 20 of the Arms Act was to be upheld, the case was not of such a serious nature as to warrant the passing of a sentence of imprisonment and that a sentence of fine would be adequate on the merits of the case. He further argued that the prosecution evidence only discloses an offence falling under the provisions of section 19 (f) of the Arms Act; thus disclosing a less serious offence. In so far as the passing of sentence is concerned, I have carefully studied the records of the case and must come to the conclusion that there are no grounds for enhancement. Substantial justice has been done by sentencing the convict respondent to six months' rigorous imprisonment and when his age is taken into consideration (he is a youth of only 19 who has undoubtedly been influenced by the reading of certain novels) I can see no reason to enhance the sentence. As for the question whether he has been properly convicted under section 20 of the Arms Act, I would observe that it has been held that this section applies only to cases where the import and export of arms is attempted and not to every case of possession and concealment of arms ; something more than ordinary concealment should be established in order A to bring the possession within the meaning of section 20 of the Arms Act. It has further been held that mere possession of an un licensed arm is punishable under section 19 (f) of the Arms Act, but if the circumstances are such as to indicate an intention that the possession may not be known to the Police, the offence is punishable under section

20. Whether the intention referred to above exists is a pure question of fact. In order to uphold a conviction under section 20 of the Arms Act, it is therefore necessary to ensure that by conceal ment of the arms in question the convict-respondent had concealed them with the intention of hiding them from the Police or any other public servant mentioned in section 20 of the Arms Act. The record, however, in this case discloses no such evidence of intention. The fact that the arms were concealed does not in itself presuppose that the intention underlying the concealment fell within the meaning of section 20 of the Arms Act. In all these circumstances, while dismissing the revision petition for enhancement of sentence, I think it would be fit and proper to alter the conviction under section 20 to one under section 19 (f) of the Arms Act. In so doing, I see no reason to reduce the sentence already imposed. Accordingly, in substitution of the order ; 3ssed by the learned Sessions Judge, I convict the convict-respondent for having committed an offence wider section 19 (f) of the Arms Act and sentence him to six months' rigorous imprison ment. Petition dismissed. A. H. Conviction altered.