1988 PLP 574 (MLD)

West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Illicit possession of arms‑‑Recovery of Carbine and live cartridge‑ Recovery witnessed by prosecution witnesses‑‑Nothing available on record to show that accused had been implicated falsely‑‑Both Courts below after proper appraisal of evidence coming to conclusion that unlicensed arms were recovered from accused‑‑Finding of Courts below not suffering from misreading of evidence‑‑Interference declined. Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari for Petitioner. The petitioner in this case was tried on a charge under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and vide judgment dated 31st of July, 1987, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty on the said charge and accordingly sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of one year R.I. Aggrieved by the said conviction, an appeal was taken before the Additional Sessions Judge at Sheikhupura, which met the same fate. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to assail the aforesaid conviction. I have perused the record of this case. The petitioner is alleged to have gone to Sheikhupura Jail where the warden suspected the petitioner and on search, a carbine alongwith a live cartridge were found in a plastic bag. The recovery has been witnessed by the two wardens of the Sheikhupura Jail. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has been implicated falsely. It was argued by Mr. Zahid Hussain Bokhari, Advocate for the petitioner that this carbine in the first instance was with some lady and not with the petitioner. In this behalf, my attention has been drawn to the statement of the warden who has said so but he also stated that on search, the carbine was recovered from the petitioner. Be that as it may, both the Courts below after appraising the evidence have arrived at the conclusion that the unlicensed arm was recovered from the petitioner. The aforesaid finding is based upon proper appraisal of evidence and the finding does not suffer from misreading of evidence. In this view of the matter, I cannot in exercise of revisional jurisdiction embark upon reappraisal of evidence because as observed above, the same has been appraised properly. Hence on merits, there is no substance in this petition. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sentence is too severe and it is a fit case for the reduction of sentence. I am afraid that the contention has no substance, accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.