1992 PLP 1877 (MLD)

Pir S.A. Rashid for Appellant. Subah Saeed for the State. Date of hearing: 21st March, 1992. RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.‑‑‑The appellant, Raza Saleem alias Viky son of Dildar Saleem Gill, caste Christian was tried by the learned Judge Special Court for Suppression of Terrorists Activities, Lahore Division, Lahore. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years' R.I. plus a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof to undergo three months' R.I. under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this appeal before this Court. It shall be decided through this judgment.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 5‑10‑1991 at 8‑30 a.m., Ghulam Hussain A.S.I. P.W.2 was present alongwith Muneer Ahmad H.C. P.W.1 on the main Boulevard, Gulberg. They spotted two youngmen who were coming on a motorcycle from Garden Town‑side in suspicious condition. They were asked to stop there. They were holding an attached case. The Police suspected the youngmen. The appellant Raza Saleem made an attempt to run away from the spot with the attache‑case. However, he was overpowered at the spot and the attache‑case was taken into custody. He was also holding a bag hanging on his shoulder: From the search of the bag, a Klashnikov and 70 bullets were recovered from the appellants. The attache‑case P.I., Bag P.2 and Bullets P.3/1‑70, Klashnikov P.5 and other Magazine P.6 were taken into possession by the police. The appellant failed to show any licence to keep the weapon with him alongwith bullets. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Muneer Ahmad HC P.W.1, Ghulam Hussain P.W.2 and Anwar‑ul- Haq P.W.3. The appellant denied the allegation levelled against him in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He took the plea that he was involved in the case because of his established enmity with the police. He further stated that nothing was recovered from him. In support of his plea, he produced 3 defence witnesses. Mehmood Ali D.W.1 deposed that his son was arrested by ‑Sanda Police. He sent his three servants to enquire about the welfare of his son. However, they did not return whereupon the appellant was sent by him to give food to his son. According to the witness, the appellant was a friend of his son. On 27‑9‑1991, it came to light that the appellant was also arrested by the police and was handed over to Gulberg Police in some other case. Zulfiqar D.W.2 deposed that he saw the appellant while in the custody of Sanda Police on 25‑9‑1991. 1t is contended with vehemence by the learned counsel that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond doubt. He maintains that no witness from the public was produced in support of the case of the prosecution. Learned State counsel has defended the conviction and sentence of the appellant by adopting the reasons given in the judgment.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The record has also been carefully read by us with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was caught red‑handed at the spot. The Klashnikov and the bullets were recovered from his possession in presence of prosecution witnesses. No licence to keep the weapon and the bullets could be shown by the appellant at the spot. The story that the appellant was arrested by Sanda Police and was later on handed oven to Gulberg Police appears to be a mere concoction on the part of the appellant. We are persuaded to reject the plea being wholly unfounded. The prosecution was able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction of the appellant is accordingly upheld. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, his sentence is reduced to three years' R.I. Similarly the amount of fine is also reduced by 50%. Benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. shall also be given to the appellant. With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./R‑35/L Sentence reduced.