1992 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑--‑ This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, whereby he on 24‑5‑1990 convicted Safdar Munir appellant under section .13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to four year s R.I.

2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed Klashnikov P.1 and live bullets P.2/1‑20 on the night between 23/24‑6‑1989. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced four witnesses. Mazhar Hussain S.I. (P.W.1) drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.2, Muhammad Sharif P.W.3 and Shahid Mahboob Khan Inspector (P.W.4) were/are the witnesses of the recovery of fire‑arms from the appellant. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.2 refused .to support the recovery of Klashnikov and bullets from the appellant. Muhammad Sharif stated that Klashnikov P.1 and bullets P.2/1‑20 were recovered from the possession of the appellant. In cross-examination, he admitted to have appeared as prosecution witness in 10/12 cases of the police of which Shahid Mahboob Khan Inspector (P.W.4) was the S.H.O. Shahid Mahboob Khan Inspector P.W.4 supported the recovery of Klashnikov P.1 and twenty bullets P.2/1‑20 from the possession of the appellant on the night between 23/24‑6‑1989.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the recovery of the tire‑arms. He did not produce any witness in defence, although tendered certified copies of the judgment Exh.D.B., Exh.D.C., Exh.D.E. and

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Muhammad Yousaf, public man, has not supported the prosecution case and that Muhammad Sharif is a stock‑witness. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. We have considered the matter carefully. We feel persuaded to accept this appeal for the reasons that there were three witnesses of the recovery of the unlicensed fire‑arms from the appellant. Shahid Mahboob Khan P.W.4 was/is Inspector Police. He was/is naturally interested in the conviction of the appellant. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.2 and Muhammad Sharif P.W.3 are public men. Muhammad Yousaf did not support the recovery of the fire‑arms from the appellant. Muhammad Sharif having admittedly appeared as a prosecution witness in 10/12 cases of the same police station, can safely be termed as a stock‑witness. For these reasons, we are convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. Klashnikov P.1 and twenty bullets P.2/12‑20 shall be confiscated in favour of the State in accordance with law. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. SA./S‑4/L Appeal accepted.