MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State

ORDER

TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J .--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 15-9-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment, dated 10-9-2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang has been dismissed.

2. Petitioner Muhammad Iqbal was tried in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.120 of 2001, dated 23-6-2001, Police Station, Saddar; Jhang on the allegation that on 23-6-2001 at about 9-15 a.m. he was found in possession of an unlicensed rifle .222 with two live bullets.

3. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment, dated 10-9-2001 convicted the petitioner under section 7(b) of Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and sentenced him to ten years R.I. He was also extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

4. During the trial the prosecution produced four witnesses namely HC Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.1, Abdul Majid, A.S.-I., P.W.2, Muhammad Iqbal, H.C. P.W.3 and Umer Khan, Inspector P.W.4. The petitioner denied the prosecution story and stated as under:---

"No recovery was made from my possession. The alleged recovery of fake and planted by the police at the instance of one Umar Hayat and one Muhammad Nawaz, my opponents under the influence of Ex.M.P.A., Ghulam Ahmad Gadi. The police entered into the house forcibly, looted and taken valuable including cash of Rs.45,000 golden jewellery and a Motorcycle No.MB-4405-Honda-125, the police insulted, abused the women-folk in the house and severely beaten my brother, Ghazanfar. To avoid the situation, a fake recovery was made against me. Nothing was recovered from my possession."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a false case, that no public witness was produced in support of the prosecution case and that the petitioner is a previous non-convict and had no criminal intimacy.

6. Learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that under the Act a notification had been issued and target date was fixed for surrender of illicit arms, that as per prosecution the illicit arms in question were recovered from the possession of the petitioner after the expiry of the target date, therefore, the case fell within the mischief of the Act. However, he referred to the observations of a learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court in Muhammad Ishfaq alias Pappu v. The State PLD 2002 Lahore 36 to say that as per the said judgment the prosecution had to prove that the arms recovered from the petitioner was not in petitioner's possession within the target date.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Law Officer and have given anxious consideration to the submissions made.

8. So far as the observations made by learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in PLD 2002 Lahore 36 (supra) are concerned, suffice it to say that those observations were made in a bail granting order and not in an appeal. Even otherwise neither during trial nor before the High Court and not even before this Court any plea of the kind was raised which could entitle him to the benefit of the case cited above. The said judgment, therefore, would not be of any relevance so far as the instant petition is concerned.

9. We have gone through the prosecution evidence recorded during the trial. The witnesses of recovery namely P.W.1 Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.2 Abdul Majid and P.W.3 Muhammad Iqbal as also P.W.4 Umer Khan are all consistent on the timing, place and mode of the illicit arm, subject-mater of this appeal. During cross-examination there no suggestion was made that any of the afore-referred witnesses was inimical towards the petitioner and the only plea taken in the statement recorded by the petitioner under section 342, Cr.P.C. was that he had enmity with one Umar Hayat and Muhammad Nawaz and that under the influence of Ex.M.P.A. a false case had been registered. This plea is too far-fetched to create doubt in the prosecution case. In the afore-referred circumstances we are of the opinion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. No question of law has been raised. That being so we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal.

10. What has been discussed above, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.

M.H./M-170/SC Petition dismissed.