MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, resulting in a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding alleged misreading of evidence, contradictions between police recovery witnesses, non-association of public witnesses, and unconsidered defence documents and enmity with police officials. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the evidence in light of these contentions, suspended the sentence, and admitted the petitioner to bail.
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when recovery witnesses are exclusively police officials and contradict each other on material particulars?
- Can a conviction under the Arms Ordinance be sustained when defence evidence and documents regarding police enmity are allegedly ignored?
- Whether the sentence can be suspended and bail granted upon the grant of leave to appeal?
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner while in custody in another criminal case, disclosed and led to his shop at 1-45 a.m. And after opening it produced Klashnikov with magazine containing 10 bullets. He had no licence, hence the case was registered against him in which he was convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 by the Special Court and sentenced to R.I. For 5 years and fine of Rs,20,000 or in default R.I. For 6 months. High Court has dismissed his appeal, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has been gross misreading of evidence brought on the record. Recovery witnesses are police officials and no attempt was made to join the public witnesses from locality. P.W.3 Rehmatullah A.S.I. And P..W4 Tahir Mehmood I.O. Have contradicted each other in their evidence on material particulars. According to the petitioner he was framed in a false case as he had made applications against police officers and his brother filed a writ petition against them. He produced two witnesses in defence namely D.W.1 Muhammad Amin and D.W.2 Rehmatullah, who deposed that shop was not raided by the police as alleged.
Documents produced in support of defence plea Exhs. DB, DC, DE, DF, DG and DH have not been considered in proper perspective particularly when enmity is put to police officers in their cross- examination and is admitted by them.
3. We grant leave to examine evidence in the light of contentions mentioned above. Sentence is suspended and bail is granted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs,20,000 with one surety and P.R. In the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.