SHAFIQ-UR-REHMAN Versus THE STATE

RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J .--- Shafiq-ur-Rehman was sent up for trial by Police Station Khanqah Dogran, District Sheikhupura, for an offence under section 7 of the Ordinance XX of 1991. Special Court No.IV, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore vide judgment, dated 21-10-1991 convicted and sentenced him to ten years' R.I. under section 7 of the abovesaid Ordinance. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.

2. Prosecution story in brief, as disclosed in complaint Exh:P.B. lodged by Amanullah, Inspector/S.H.O., was to the effect that on 21-8-1991 the first informant with other police officials and Mr. Manzar Saeed, Magistrate 1 st Class and D.S.P. Gul Mawaz, Sheikhupura went to Salar Bhattian within the area of Police Station Khanqah Dogran. An announcement from the village Mosque on Loudspeaker was made that whosoever had unlicensed fire arms should deposit same with the said party. In pursuance of the announcement Shafiq-ur-Rehman deposited a Klashnikov with ten bullets. Since he could not produce any licence for the said fire-arm, therefore, the present case.

3. The prosecution in support of its case produced three witnesses in all. Manzar Saeed, Magistrate 1 st Class, P.W.1 supported the prosecution case by stating that on 21-8-1991 he was a member of the raiding party for the recovery of unlicensed fire-arms. In pursuance of an announcement from the Mosque, Shafiq-ur-Rehman produced Klashnikov P.1 with 10 bullets P.2/1-10. Muhammad Arif, P.W.2 stated that he was present at the spot when the Magistrate and other police officials came there. They made an announcement on the Loudspeaker from the Mosque asking the residents to surrender unlicensed fire-arms, in pursuance of which Shafiq-ur-Rehman appellant surrendered Klashnikov with ten bullets, which was secured and he signed the recovery memo. Exh.P.A. Amanullah, Inspector/S.H.O., P.W.3 corroborated the prosecution version. He further stated that he drafted complaint Exh.P.B. on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Was registered. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence.

4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that, the prosecution case on the face of it is highly doubtful and no reliance can be placed on it. Submitted that even if the entire prosecution allegations are accepted, yet it would only mean that the appellant of his own had surrendered the illicit arm, therefore, his conviction was bad in law.

We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence. The prosecution story is that an announcement was made on a Loudspeaker from the village mosque directing the people to surrender unlicensed fire-arms. In pursuance of the said direction, the appellant had surrendered the Klashnikov P.1. This clearly indicates that the intention of the appellant was not to commit any offence but was to help the law enforcing agencies. The surrender of Klashnikov P.1 was a voluntary act. It was not done on account of any threat or promise. In these circumstances, we feel the provisions of section 7 of Ordinance XX of 1991 are not attracted. Even otherwise, the circumstances under which the Klashnikov P.1 is alleged to have been surrendered are not free from doubt. Therefore, we accept the appeal, set aside the conviction and direct that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

N.H.Q./S-436/L

Appeal accepted.,