1991 PLP 2119 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court for Anti-Terrorist Activities, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, whereby he on 16-6-1990, convicted Ghulam Shabbir appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 30,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I.

2. Me charge against the appellant was that he possessed unlicensed Klashinkov, which he on 22-5-90 got recovered from Chak No. 68/NP. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, the prosecution produced four witnesses. Barkat Ali PW 1 and Muhammad Hussain Shah PW-4 are the witnesses of recovery of unlicensed Klashnikov P.1 from the appellant. Barkat Ali PW-1 stated that in his presence, the appellant got recovered Klashnikov P.1 loaded with four rounds Ex. P.2/1-4, for which he could not produce any licence for keeping the same. Muhammad Hussain Shah Inspector (PW-4) supported the recovery of unlicensed Klashnikov from the appellant. Ghulam Ali PW-3 had drawn up formal F.I.R. Ex.P.B. Waris Ali PW-2 did not make any statement. Only his particulars were written.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of Klashnikov from him. He neither gave evidence on oath in disproof of charges against him nor did he produce any witness in defence.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant; that the witnesses of recovery are not reliable and that the sentence awarded to the appellant is harsh. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

5. We have considered the matter carefully. We find that the two witnesses of the recovery, namely, Barkat Ali PW-1 and Muhammad Hussain Shah, Inspector (PW-4) had no enmity against the appellant to involve him falsely in the case or to plant the recovery of Klashnikov on him. They have successfully faced the test of cross- examination. Their statements do not suffer from material discrepancies/ contradictions. We do not see any legal infirmity in their statements. The appellant has not been able to rebut the prosecution evidence. For all these reasons, we feel that no exception can be taken to the conviction of the appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. It may be noted here that the case was sent up under section 13-A of the Arms Ordinance. The appellant was charged under section 13-A of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. But he was convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, without specifying subsection. The offence of keeping unlicensed Klashinkov falls under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The non -mention of subsection of section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, does not adversely effect the trial or conviction of the appellant. This brings us to the question of sentence. We feel that the sentence of five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.30,000 is really excessive, so the same is reduced from five years' R.I. to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 30,000 awarded by the trial Court is also reduced to Rs.5,000 or in default thereof further R.I. for three months.

6. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./G-481/L Appeal dismissed.