1992 P Cr (PLP)

SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.‑‑‑ The appellant Muhammad Saleem was tried by a Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act, 1975, Gujranwala, on the charge under section 13‑E, Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, for having kept in his possession a Klashnikov without licence. Vide judgment, dated 25‑6‑1991, the appellant was found guilty on the aforesaid charges and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14‑1‑1991, Tahir Majeed, S.I. (P.W.4) was present outside Katcha Darwaza in the area of Police Station Sabz Mandi in connection with patrol duty. According to the prosecution a secret information was received by Tahir Majeed S.I. (P.W.4) that the appellant was present with a Klashnikov. On the receipt of this information, Tahir Majeed S.I. constituted a raiding party and apprehended the appellant alongwith Klashnikov P.1 and a magazine containing 20 bullets P.2/1‑20, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. The recovery was attested by Saleem Ali, A.S.I., P.W.3 and Muhammad Shafi, A.S.I. (not produced). Complaint Exh.PA. Was sent by Tahir Majeed, S.I. to the police station where formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B. was recorded by Parvez Akhtar Moharrar, A.S.I. (P.W.2).

3. To support‑its case, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the statement of Tahir Majeed P.W.4 and Saleem Ali, A.S.I. P.W.3. A perusal of the statement of Tahir Majeed and particularly his cross‑examination reveals that at the time of apprehension of the appellant about 15/20 persons were present and the recovery also took place in their presence. It is surprising, rather shocking that in a case entailing conviction and sentence not less than seven years, the police does not care to join any witness from the public to support its case. No doubt the police officials are competent witnesses but the circumstances of each case should be examined, to judge the veracity and credibility of statements of such police officials. Although there are the cases where compliance of section 103 is not necessary, the same is need in the circumstances of the case especially in a busy town like Gujranwala outside Katcha Darwaza at a distance of about 1/2 furlong from the police station. It cannot be believed that the appellant would stand at 6‑00 p.m. alongwith a Klashnikov in his hand alongwith a magazine wrapped in a Chaddar. Be that as it may, failure on the part of the prosecution to join the witnesses from public casts serious doubts upon the veracity of the prosecution case. Consequently, we have no option but to allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him. He shall be released forthwith provided of course he is not needed in some other criminal case. SA./M‑227/L Appeal accepted.