1994 P Cr (PLP)

SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR, J.

Muhammad Yousaf appellant was tried under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance by the Judge, Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Gujranwala. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment, dated 5-8-1993 convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to 5 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 20,000 or in default 6 months' R.I. The convict has appealed to this Court.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28-5-1993 at about 10 a.m. when Muhammad Nawaz A.S.I., C.I.A. Staff, Gujrat alongwith other police personnels Sabir Hussain and Muhammad Nawaz another A.S.I. P.W.3 were present in Nawab Chowk, City Gujrat for general check-up. One Iftikhar Ahmad informed that a person driving Car No.GAE-9399 was moving carrying illicit arms. Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.I. P.W.2 barricated in the Chowk of Ram Talai G.T. Road. Meanwhile a car arrived there from Gujrat City. It was stopped and searched. A Klashnikov P.2 having two magazines P.3/1-2 were secured for which the appellant had no licence vide memo. Exh.P.A. Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.I. P.W.2 drafted complaint Exh.P.B. and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case. He recorded the statement of the P. Ws. completed the investigation and challaned the accused.

3. The prosecution in support of its case produced Sh. Abdul Rashid, Fire-arms Expert, he examined the Klashnikov. Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.I. P.W.2 the complainant and the investigator of this case, another Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.I., P.W.3, who were attested the recovery memo. Exh.P.A. and Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.I., who recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./l.

4. The appellant in his statement denied the prosecution allegations and made the following statement:-- "The fact of the matter is that I was driving my car Exh.P.l back to my village and when reached the place of recovery the police rounded me up and at that time I was keeping my licensed gun in the car. The police party pressurized me for the payment of illegal gratification and on my refusal we exchanged hot words against each others and ugly scene was created. The police became hostile against me. Took me to the office C. I. A. and planted klashnikov and magazine out of revenge."

5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that no person from the public though available was associated in the recovery and only two police officials, who had enmity with the appellant were made the recovery witnesses. There is an Octroi Post near the place of recovery, which is thoroughfare but none of the octroi persons were associated in the recovery and the police has involved the appellant in this case at the behest of one Cheema, D.S.P. The appellant is a Vice-Chairman and respectable citizen and he has been roped in this case on account of enmity with the police.

6. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment.

7. We have examined the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully with their able assistance. It is true that normally if the recovery is witnessed by the police officials alone, the Courts are to be on guard to analyse their evidence with care and caution, so that no innocent person 'be made scapegoat. However, in the present case, we find that the police has no ostensible enmity with the appellant and in the normal course, no Police Officer would involve a person falsely, especially a Vice-Chairman. Had this been the position then the appellant would have moved the higher authorities for the transfer of the investigation. The contention that the Police Officer is himself the complainant as well as the investigator is not available to the appellant in this case because the Police Officer was fair enough and the recovery cannot be doubted solely on the ground that it was witnessed by police officials. Hence we find no force in this appeal, which is dismissed.

8. We find lot of force in the arguments of the learned counsel that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court is bit harsh. So, while 1B maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, we reduce the sentence from 5 years' R.I. to 3 years' R.1. and also the sentence of fine from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000 or in default from 6 months' E R.I. to 3 months' R.I. The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. N.H.Q./M-1809/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Sentence reduced.