1987 PLP 1984 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 1st July, 1987. Riaz Hussain petitioner was tried under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, by Magistrate Ist Class, Faisalabad who, vide his judgment dated 4-3-1987, convicted him on said charge and sentenced him to R.I. for six months. He challenged his conviction and sentence in the Sessions Court, but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, on 2-5-1987. He has come up in revision to question the correctness and proporiety of the aforesaid order.

2. The Prosecution version is that on 20-4-1985 a Khanjar was recovered from the petitioner for which he had no licence. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the allegation levelled against him.

3. In support of its case the prosecution examined two recovery witnesses, namely Muhammad Saleem and Bashir Ahmad. Amanullah, A.S. I., who effected the recovery could not be examined as he had died before the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the recovery witnesses are interested and their evidence suffers from material contradictions, therefore, there was no justification to record a finding of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the recovery witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner and they have been rightly relied upon.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of evidence available on the record. At the relevant time Muhammad Saleem PW was employed as Stand Manager at Wagon Stand, Jhang Bazar, Faisalabad. He admitted that he was also a witness in another case and always associated with the police. According to him the police had taken the petitioner to Police Post from the spot where the Khanjar was recovered on his personal search. He further stated that the recovery memo was also prepared at the Police Post. The only other witness, namely Bashir Ahmad, admitted that he was an ex-police official. He stated that he was present with the police in Jhang Bazar when a Khanjar was recovered from the petitioner on his personal search. He further stated that his statement was recorded at the spot (place of recovery). Thus the statements of the alleged recovery witnesses are discrepant in material particulars and both of them appear to be under police influence. In. the circumstances, it will not be safe to maintain the conviction of the petitioner on the basis of their evidence. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge by giving him the benefit of doubt. S.A. /R-35/L Revision accepted.