1993 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad and others v. The State P L D 1981 SC 635 ref. Saleem A. Malik for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Adam for the State. Dates of hearing: 11th and 12th October, 1992. AUSAF ALI KHAN, J

The appellant Liaqat Ali was tried under section 13 of the .Arms Ordinance by the learned Judge, Special Court No.IV Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore Division, Lahore, who by his judgment, dated the 17th of December, 1990, convicted and sentenced him thereunder to five years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) or in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for one year. The fire-arm and ammunition recovered from him were ordered to be confiscated and disposed of according to law after the expiry of period of appeal or revision, if any.

2. The prosecution case is that in pursuance of investigation of a case under section 302/307/353/34, P.P.C., registered against Liaqat appellant, he presented a Klashnikov alongwith twenty-one live bullets and ten empties which were took into possession vide memo. Exh.P.A. The fire-arm was unlicensed and, therefore, a case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance was registered against him. He was duly charged to which he pleaded not guilty and instead professed his innocence. He stated that he was falsely implicated in the offence while nothing was recovered from him.

3. The prosecution examined in all five witnesses of which P.W.1 Bubu Khan, Sub-Inspector, stated that on the 15th of November, 1989, he alongwith the Station House Officer and other police officials was on patrol duty when Miran Bakhsh, Inspector, produced a Klashnikov (P.1), two magazines (P.2/1-2), twenty-one bullets (P.3/1-21) and 10 empties (P.4/1-10) which he secured vide memo. Exh.PA. P.WJ Riaz Ahmad Constable told that he had recorded the formal F.I.R. on the basis of complaint (Exh.P.B.) made by Tariq Masud, Inspector (P.W.3). P.W.4, Safdar Ali, A.S.I. and P.W.5 Muhammad Aslam, the then D.S.P., also supported the version of recovery of incriminating articles. No witness was produced in defence. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as shown above.

4. The main plank of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant was that the recovery of the unlicensed weapon was not proved strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as material witnesses were not examined to prove the same and that, if at all, the recovery of the incriminating articles was not attested by independent witnesses and it being attested by police officials was not worth considering. We are afraid the recovery is fully established by the complainant as well as three other witnesses, namely, Babu Khan (P.W.1), Sardar Ali (P.W.4) and Muhammad Aslam (P.W.5.), for, they categorically deposed that they went to the Haveli of Muhammad Hasan in village Rosa where Liaqat appellant was nabbed and the arms and ammunition were taken into possession. The learned trial Judge was right in holding that in presence of the testimony of the above three witnesses, no other person was required to support, m that had anyone been examined in the case, his evidence would been the same as that of the witnesses examined. Further, as to the proof of recovery attested by police official, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has no substance in view of the dictum enunciated by the Supreme Court in Muhammad and others v. The State P L D 1981 SC 635 where it was held that recovery testified by policeman can .be believed. Therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence. However, the appellant is behind the bars since considerable period i.e. three years and he is suffering the agony of litigation for too long. In the circumstances, his sentence is reduced from five years' R.I. to what he has already undergone. The sentence of fine, however, is maintained. The seized weapons shall remain confiscated to the State. H.B.T./L-31/L????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Appeal dismissed/order accordingly.