MIR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J. ‑‑‑This appeal arises from the facts that Mir Muhammad (appellant) was tried under section 13‑E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 on the charge of keeping unlicensed gun, by Additional Sessions Judge, Usta Muhammad, who, on the conclusion of the trial convicted him under section 13‑E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 or in default three months' R.I. Benefit of section 382‑B of Criminal Procedure Code was given to him. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta on 16‑3‑1992. Feeling still dissatisfied, he filed petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. This Court vide its order dated 14‑11‑1992 has granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence.

2. According to the prosecution case, the appellant, while under arrest in the connected murder case (Criminal Appeal No. 286/1992), led the Police to his house on 16‑12‑1986 and got recovered unlicensed gun Article I from there. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. The prosecution produced three witnesses namely, Muhammad Rasan S.I./SHO (P.W.1), Didar Ali, ASI (P.W.2) and Rehmatullah, HC (P.W. 3) in proof of the recovery of unlicensed gun Article 1, from the possession of Mir Muhammad appellant. They have fully supported the prosecution case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of gun (Article 1) from him. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

5. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the aforesaid three witnesses of the recovery being the Police officials are the interested witnesses; that they are not the residents of the locality, as such not reliable; that the police had not joined two respectable persons of the locality to witness the recovery as required by section 103, Cr.P.C.; and that the violation of the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. has rendered the recovery of gun as illegal.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care and do not feel pursuaded to agree with him. The three Police Officials had no enmity with the appellant. We do not see any infirmity in their statements. Their evidence cannot be rejected on account of the office which they hold. Police officials are as good witnesses as any other citizen. The two Courts below have believed them. In the instant case, the appellant had led the police to his house and pointed the place wherefrom the gun was recovered. Neither search warrants were issued by the Magistrate for the search of the house of the appellant nor the Police had searched his house/place of its own. The plain reading of section 103, Cr.P.C. would show that the provisions of this section apply to a case where the Police conducts search of a house/place to recover an article for which search is to be made and not to a case where anything is to be discovered in consequence of the information given by or on the pointation of the accused. The recovery to be made on the pointation of the accused is relevant under Article 40 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984. The association of the two respectable inhabitants of the locality is not required in a case where the accused himself leads the Police to a particular place and gets the article recovered.

7. No case is made out for interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

M.B.A./M‑2252/S Appeal dismissed.