1992 PLP 1385 (PCRLJ)

‑‑‑‑Every error/omission and irregularity in the mode of trial cannot vitiate the trial unless such error is shown to have prejudiced the case of accused. Muhammad Amin and another v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 1922 rel. Muhammad Akbar Tarar for Petitioner. A.H. Masood for the State. Date of hearing: 10th November, 1991. Through this revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgment dated 12‑1‑1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, A Gujrat, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction recorded under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance by the Magistrate Section 30, Gujrat but reduced the sentence from two years' R.I. to one year's R.I. The facts in brief are that while on patrol duty near the Railway Station Haria, Tahir Mahmood, S.I./S.H.O. apprehended the petitioner carrying a double barrel shot‑gun alongwith a bag containing five alive cartridges: Since the petitioner could not produce the licence for his arm, as such the case vide FI.R. No.613 Exh.P.B. was registered at the behest of Tahir Mahmood S.I./S.H.O., at Police Station Malakwal. After usual investigation the challan was submitted. The prosecution produced three witnesses to establish its case. The petitioner was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he had denied the allegation levelled against him. The learned Resident Magistrate, Malakwal, Tehsil Phalia through his order, dated 14‑4‑1988 convicted the petitioner under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to two years' R.I. The petitioner riled an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat through his order, dated 12‑1‑1991. However he period of sentence was reduced from two years to one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that evidence of the witnesses was not appreciated in its true perspective as it was a licensed gun belonging to another person, who was also apprehended alongwith the petitioner as reflected from the testimony of Tahir Mahmood. This fact, according to the learned counsel was not taken into consideration. It has also been argued that the mandatory provisions of section 364, Cr.P.C. have not been observed as the certificate at the end of the statement of the petitioner recorded undo, section 342, Cr.P.C. was not given. He has also pointed out certain discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the record. The argument that no certificate as provided under section 364, Cr.P.C. had A been given has got no force as the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any prejudice caused to the petitioner by this omission. It has been held in Muhammad Amin and another v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 1922 that S every error/omission and irregularity in the mode of trial cannot vitiate the trial unless it can be shown that such error had prejudiced the case. In the case in hand the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any prejudice caused to the petitioner by this omission. However, keeping in view the other factors of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the view that the period of about 3 months served by the petitioner out of his sentence would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed with the modification sentence that apart from the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner, he is fined Rs.5,

000. N.H.O./M‑264/L???????? Order accordingly.