NASIR ABBAS and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from four petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained the petitioners' convictions and sentences under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, following trials by the Special Court for Speedy Trials. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the alleged recovery of illicit firearms from the possession of the petitioners by the police party. The Supreme Court evaluated the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including the Sub-Inspector and another witness, and found no infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The Supreme Court held that the credible testimonies of police officials, corroborated by other evidence, are sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Arms Ordinance, and minor discrepancies regarding individual recoveries do not vitiate the prosecution case when creditworthiness remains intact. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.
- Whether the testimony of a police officer alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction for illegal possession of firearms under the Arms Ordinance?
- Does a minor discrepancy in the statement of a prosecution witness regarding recovery vitiate concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?
- On what grounds will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual determinations made by the trial court and the High Court?
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners in these four petitions for special leave to appeal were separately tried by the Special Court for speedy trial of an offence under section 13, Arms Ordinance and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fines of Rs,5,000. They filed appeals which were heard by a Division Bench in the High Court. The learned Division Bench maintained their convictions and sentences and dismissed the appeals after giving a direction that they should be given the benefit of Section 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on the night between 9/10-7-1987 a police contingent was travelling by a wagon on the Jhang-Chiniot Road. When it reached Chamra Mor, it found the petitioners standing on the road side. The petitioners started running. The police party chased them and after covering some distance succeeded in capturing them. From each of the four petitioners carbines with live cartridges were recovered.
3. The petitioners pleaded not guilty at the trial. They denied that any fire-man was recovered from their possession and alleged that they had been falsely implicated.
4. The case against the petitioners was supported at the trial by a Sub-Inspector of the Police who was heading the Police party and one Saeed Ahmad. The trial Court as well as the High Court found their testimony credible and held the petitioners guilty.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who has not been able to point out any infirmity in the findings of the High Court. So far as Bhalak petitioner is concerned, Saeed Ahmad did not in his statement mention the recovery of fire-arm from his possession. But then there is the testimony of S.1. Abdul Majid against him. There is no reason at all why S.I. Abdul Majid should have perjured himself against him. No case for interference by this Court has I been made out. The petitions are dismissed.