2007 PLP 2971 (YLR)

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.

This .appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-1-2004 passed by the learned Judge Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, Rawalpindi Division and Islamabad Capital Territory constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, (for having possessed of two plastic bags P.2/1-2, 1030 rounds of Kalashinkoves P.3/1-1030, two hand grenades P.4/1-2, 28 magazines of Kalashinkove P. 5/1-28 and 9 Kalashinkoves P.6/1-9), through which judgment, appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:-- (i) Under 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 and sentenced to seven years and fine of Rs.1,00,000 in default whereof to further undergo R.I. for six months.

2. After having completed legal formalities, challan was submitted against the appellant before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction, accused denied the charge and claimed trial, where, the prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced four prosecution witnesses during the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal contends that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case; that the recovery was planted on the appellant; that all the witnesses are police witnesses whose testimony cannot be relied upon; that there is a violation of section 103 Cr.P.C.; that the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent qua the place and mode of recovery; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and he is entitled to acquittal.

4. On the other hand, .the learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction, submits that the recovery was effected from the appellant; that there is no mala fide on the part of the prosecution witnesses and that the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The appellant, during the course of investigation of the case registered vide F.I.R. No.485 dated 28-11-2002 of PS Taxila under sections 302/324/34 P.P.C. read with sections 415 of the Explosive Act and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, led to recovery of two plastic bags P.2/1-2, 1030 rounds of Kalashinkoves P.3/1-1030, two hand grenades P.4/1-2, 28 magazines of Kalashinkove P.5/1-28 and 9 Kalashinkoves P.6/1-9 for which he could not produce any licence and for which he was tried by the above said learned Special Court.

7. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced the following prosecution witnesses:-- (i) Muhammad Saqlain, Bomb Disposal Expert (P.W.1) (ii) Atta Muhammad A.S.-I. (P.W.2); (iii) Bahadar Khan A,S.I. (P.W.3); and (iv) Saadat Mehdi, Investigating Officer (P.W.4). All the above witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. The appellant, neither produced any defence evidence in order to prove his innocence nor under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. he rebutted the same.

8. It is settled by now that the police witnesses are as good as the other public witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely because they are police witnesses. The said 'witnesses have no malice or motive to falsely depose against the appellant coupled with the fact that such a huge quantity cannot be planted.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parries and taking into consideration their respective submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction. The nutshell of the above discussion is that this appeal is dismissed having no merit after having maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court in toto. The appellant is on bail vide order of this Court dated 15-7-2004. He shall, be taken into custody to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. N.H.Q./S-126/L Appeal dismissed.