MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus THE STATE Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi , Nemo for the State.

Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner, was tried under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, on the charge of keeping unlicensed revolver, which was recovered from his possession on 5-2-1981.

2. Muhammad Hussain P.W.1 stated that the petitioner got recovered unlicensed revolver P.1 from his house, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.B. Faiz Muhammad P.W.3 supported the recovery of unlicensed revolver P.1 from the petitioner. The rest of the evidence was of formal nature.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the recovery of revolver from him. He did not produce any witness in defence.

4. The trial Court, vide its order, dated 18-4-1983, convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to one year's R.I. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, on 15-5-1983.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the recovery of unlicensed revolver from the petitioner, and that the benefit of the provisions under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. has not been given to him. No one has appeared for the State.

6. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that Mushtaq Ahmad P.W.1 and Faiz Muhammad P.W.3 have supported the recovery of unlicensed revolver from the petitioner. He has not given any satisfactory explanation of keeping unlicensed revolver. The statement of the Investigating Officer cannot be rejected on account of the office he holds. The statement of the recovery witnesses do not suffer from material contradictions/discrepancies. I do not see any legal infirmity in their evidence. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it. For these reasons, no exception can be taken to the conviction of the petitioner under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. I find that the petitioner was arrested in a case under section 307/34, P.P.C. It was during the investigation of that case that unlicensed revolver P.1 was recovered from his possession. The connected case under section 307/34, P.P.C. and this case under the Arms Ordinance were decided on the same day. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in a case under section 307, P.P.C.

It may be noted here that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 307, P.P.C. The appeal filed by him was dismissed. The revision filed by him against the conviction and sentence has also been dismissed by this Court today. This being the position, the direction given by the Learned Appellate Court that the sentence awarded to the petitioner in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in a case under section 307, P.P.C. is maintained. The revision is dismissed.

SA./M-2945/L Petition dismissed.