GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- -- Ghulam Muhammad alias Gaman (55) was sent up for trial by Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur for an offence under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance. Special Court No.IV (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Lahore vide judgment, dated 18-7-1990 convicted and sentenced him to seven years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.20,000, or in default one year's R.I. The convict has appealed through jail. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. The prosecution story in brief, as disclosed in F.I.R. Exh.PA./1, recorded on the basis of statement Exh.PA. lodged by Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector, P.W.4, was to the effect that on 5-4-1989 at about 4 a.m., the first informant with other police officials was present at a canal bridge. He saw Ghulam Muhammad with others coming. They were stopped: On his personal search, heroin as well as a sten-gun P.1 was recovered from the appellant with 15 live bullets. Since he could not produce any licence for the fire-arm, therefore, the gun was secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. Thereafter, said Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector, P.W.4 drafted complaint Exh.PA. and sent to the police station for registration of a case. After usual investigation challan was submitted in Court.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced four witnesses in all. P.W.1 Mansab Ali, A.S.I., had drawn the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 on the basis of the complaint Exh.PA. Muhammad Akram, S.I. P.W.2 was present with the other police officials when the appellant was stopped. From his personal search, sten gun P.1 alongwith 15 live bullets P.2/1-15 was secured. He had signed the recovery memo. Muhammad Din alias Manha, P.W.3 corroborated the prosecution version and stated that on the day of occurrence, he was present with the police and witnessed the recovery of sten gun effected at the instance of the appellant. P.W.4 Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector was heading the raiding party and apprehended the accused. He recovered heroin from the appellant and registered a case under section 3/4 of P.O. and 156 of the Customs Act. From the personal search of the appellant, he also recovered sten gun P.1 with 15 bullets P.2/1-15 and another 15 bullets P.3/1-15. This fire arm was unlicensed, therefore, it . was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.B., which he signed. Then he drafted the complaint Exh.PA. and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath, wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. Neither he himself appeared on oath in his defence nor produced any other defence witness.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was extremely doubtful. Submitted that the appellant was made a scape goat and in fact nothing was recovered from him. Argued that at the time of arrest, there were four persons and each one of them was carrying heroin, which, on the face of it casts a serious doubt. The contentions were opposed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. It has come in evidence that at the time of arrest the fire-arm as well as 20 Kg. heroin was secured from the appellant. Such a huge quantity of heroin and fire-arm can never be planted nor the police can manage to procure such a huge quantity. The witnesses were put to the test of lengthy cross-examination but nothing was brought on the file to discard them. The appellant has not suggested to any of the witnesses that they were deposing against him on account of any motive or enmity. In the absence of anything brought on the file to suggest the interest of the witnesses against the appellant, we feel their statements can safely be relied upon. Resultantly the appeal fails, which is dismissed.
N.H.Q./G-199/L
Appeal dismissed.