1985 P Cr (PLP)

Abdul Haleem Pirzada for Appellant. Shamsuddin Shah for Respondent No.

1. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1984. This revision application under sections 435/439, Cr.P.C. is directed against the jdugment dated 28th September, 1980 of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur in Sessions Case No 1029/1975, whereby the Respondent No.1 (Umar son of Khawand Bux) hereinafter referred to as the respondent, was acquitted of the charge of an offence punishable under section 13‑D of the Arms Ordinance. The respondent Umer was arrested in a Crime No. 109/75 under sections 323 and 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. of Police Station Ubauro on 24‑9‑1975 and it is alleged that he produced an unlicensed revolver from a heap of manure by the side of his house. The Investi gating Officer Muhammad Hayat S.H.O. who effected recovery of the revolver, registered case under section 13‑D of the Arms Ordinance against the respondent on the same day. The respondent was sent up to stand trial for the said offence. He was tried in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur and was acquitted. Prosecution case against the respondent rests on the evidence of only Muhammad Hayat S.H.O. examined as P.W. No.1. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondent on the ground that the mashirs to the alleged recovery of the unlicensed revolver from him were not examined and that only evidence of the Investigating Officer was not sufficient to prove his guilt. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant herein has urged that the evidence of the Investigating Officer was as good as that of any other witness and the respondent could be convicted on his evidence. According to him, the Mashirs had been won over and were not examined. But he has conceded that there is no evidence on the record to indicate that the Mashirs had been won over. The learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that since the Mashirs to the alleged recovery of the revolver were not examined for any reasons, mere evidence of the Investigating Officer, was not sufficient to have proved the charge against the respondent. The learned A. A.‑G also has subscribed to that view. No doubt, the evidence of the Investigating Officer is as good as that of any other witnesses; but in the case of recoveries it is the requirement of the law that the recovery made by an investigating Officer should be witnessed by two respectable persons of the locality p and where that requirement is complied with during the course of investigation, those witnesses or at least one of them should be examined to prove that particular fact and if none of those witnesses is examined to prove that fact, mere evidence of the Investigating officer would not be sufficient to prove the recovery beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to bear our that both the Mashirs had been wonover. In the circumstances the only fair decision that could be expected in the case was that of acquittal of the respondent. Obviously there is no merit in the revision application and it is dismissed. M. Y. H. Revision dismissed.