IQBAL Versus THE STATE Khan Lal Khan Baluch , Sh. Naseer ud Din Ahmad

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge Jhang, whereby he on 10‑12‑1981 convicted lqbal appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to one year's R.I.

2. The charge against the appellant was that he was possessing unlicensed gun EXh.P.l on 8‑2‑1980. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution produced 3 witnesses. Anwar P.W.2 and Muhammad Bashir S.I., P.W.3 stated that Iqbal appellant had got recovered unlicensed gun Exh. P.1 from Bhoosa lying in the Kotha of his Dhari.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of unlicensed gun Exh.P.1 from him. He did not produce any witness in defence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of unlicensed gun from the appellant and that the recovery witnesses are not reliable. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered a arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties with care. N, have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that Anwar is a quite independent witness having no animous against the appellant. Muhammad Bashir S.I. P.W.3 had also no enmity to falsely involve the appellant in the case. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any discrepancy/contradiction in the statements of these witnesses. The mere fact that Muhammad Bashir is a police official is no ground for the rejection of his statement which is supported by Anwar P.W. The appellant has not been able to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. The sentence awarded to him is, not excessive. Dismissed.

M. Y. H.

Appeal dismissed.