1975 PLP 281 (SCMR)

(b) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑ ‑‑‑ S. 13(c) read with West Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Act (LIT of 1973), S. Z‑‑Sentence‑.Transportation of 29 packages containing 14,500 rounds of '22 bore without licence‑‑Supreme Court, hell. normally does not interfere with discretionary question of sentence but even otherwise, sentence of 5 years R. T. in view of quantity of ammunition sought to be smuggled, by no means excessive. Muhammad Nazirullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Amirzada Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 30th January 1975. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑Mir Akbar petitioner was convicted by S. D. M . Swabi, under section 14 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, having been found in possession of a huge quantity of .22 bore ammunition which he was carrying in his car No. S G‑1493. The sentence of five years' R. I. awarded to him besides the confiscation of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime was upheld in appeal by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, vide order dated 13‑9-1973 against which, leave to appeal is sought in this petition,

2. On 19‑5‑1971, at about 11‑30 p.m., Car No. SG‑1493 driven by the petitioner was stopped by a Police party on picket duty near Jahangira Bridge, 8 miles from Police Station, Lahore. District Mardan. Twenty‑nine packages containing 14,500 rounds of .22 bore were recovered from the car for which the petitioner could not produce a licence. The prosecution examined three Police Officers in support of its case, namely, Abdul Ghani, Head‑Constable, C. T. A. Staff, Abdur Rauf, Sub‑Inspector and Riaz Ali Shah, Assistant Sub‑Inspector. It being a case of mid‑night occurrence, no respectable member of the public was available to witness the recovery. The case of the petitioner at the trial was one of denial simpliciter and he led no evidence in defence. 3, In support of the petition, learned counsel half‑heartedly tried to argue that Riaz Ali Shah, A. S. I. (P. W. 3) was proceeded against department tally for having replaced the vehicle and let off the co‑accused of the petitioner. This plea was never taken by the petitioner at the trial. Even otherwise, it lends implied support to his culpability. There could be hardly any question of fabrication of evidence and of planting such a huge quantity of ammunition. The petitioner was, therefore, rightly convicted. The submission made in the alternative was that the sentence was excessive. Normally, this Court does not interfere on the discretionary question of quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, having regard to the quantity of the ammunition sought to be smuggled, the sentence is by no means excessive. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.