SAFDAR ALI Versus THE STATE
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J. --- Safdar Ali was sent up for trial by Police Station, Farooqabad, District Sheikhupura for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Lahore, vide judgment, dated 28-11-1990 convicted and sentenced him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 to three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000, or in default one year's R.I. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. Prosecution story in brief, as disclosed in F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 by Irshad Ahmad, Inspector/S.H.O., was that on 1-7-1990 at about 8-30 a.m. he was present near Qadirabad Link Canal in connection with patrol duty with other police officials. In the meanwhile, three persons came on a motor-cycle. They were signalled to stop. They turned and managed to escape. One Liaqat Jatt was apprehended with a .12 bore gun. Appellant Safdar Ali while running away threw a bag, which was picked up and it contained 40 bullets of Klashnikov P.1/1-40. They were secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. Subsequently he was arrested and challaned. .
3. Prosecution in support of its case produced four witnesses in all. P.W.1 Zafar Mahmood, A.S.I. had recorded the formal F.I.R. Muhammad Amin, A.S.I., P.W.2 alongwith Muhammad Yousaf, Constable, P.W.3 was present with Irshad Ahmad, S.H.O., PWA when they witnessed the occurrence and recovered a bag containing 40 bullets of Klashnikov. In cross-examination the witnesses stated that Safdar Ali was known to Muhammad Yousaf, Constable who was present with them and identified the same Muhammad Yousaf, Constable, P.W.3 stated that the appellant Safdar Ali was known to him and he had signed the recovery memo as well. Though the witnesses were cross-examined at length, yet nothing was brought on the record to suggest any enmity. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He, however, stated that the case was registered against him ape to enmity with Liaqat Jatt.
4. We have noticed that this defence was not even put to the witnesses. The witnesses were not even suggested that for any ulterior motive they have deposed against him. The contention that no witness from public was associated has been considered, but we do not find any substance in it. In answer to a question, the witnesses stated that there was nobody available at that time.
After going through the prosecution evidence, we are convinced that 8 the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond doubt. Therefore, the appeal fails, which is dismissed.
N.H.Q./S-435/L
Appeal dismissed.