1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---By filing this Revision Application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 26-10-2005 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant against his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Sukkur, dated 17-3-2004 in Crime No,166 of 1996 for the offence punishable under section 13-D of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was maintained. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. For two years and to pay fine of Rs,2,000 and in default to undergo S.I. For two months with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts giving rise to the present revision is that on 14-9-1996 A.S.I. Anwar Ali Lodhro registered F.I.R. On behalf of the State stating therein that applicant/accused Dholan being armed with rifle was going in the street and he was arrested. On inquiry he disclosed that the said rifle was unlicensed.
3. ' After usual investigation police submitted challan against the applicant before the trial Court where the charge was framed against the applicant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. ' At the trial the prosecution examined two P.Ws. i,e, Muhammad Malook Mashir of arrest and recovery and A.S.I. Anwar Ali the complainant.
5. ' The statement of the applicant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The trial Court convicted the appellant. The appellant preferred appeal, which was also dismissed.
6. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that both the courts below have recorded their findings against the evidence available on record. He further contended that entry in roznamcha was not recorded, independent mushirs were not associated in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.
7. Other accused was acquitted on the same evidence and that the weapon was foisted upon the applicant.
8. ' Mr. Habibur Rehman Shaikh learned A.A.-G. Has supported the findings of the Courts below and has submitted that both witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and their evidence gone un-rebutted and unchallenged and that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial Court.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the evidence available on record and found that P.W. Muhammad Malook has clearly stated that accused having armed with rifle was going near Jamia Mosque in village Amir Bux Kalhoro and A.S.I. Anwar Ali arrested him in his presence. The said rifle was loaded with bullets but the complainant A.S.I. Anwar Ali unloaded it and from which three live bullets were secured upon inquiry regarding the licence accused Dholan disclosed that the same was unlicensed. In the cross-examination this evidence gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. P.W./Complainant Anwar Ali stated that accused Dholan was arrested by him along with the rifle. The defence could not controvert the evidence. From the cross-examination of the witnesses the recovery of weapon was A confirmed. Much stress was given by the learned counsel for the applicant on the deposition of Naimatullahrecorded in some other case. Every case is to be decided on the basis of evidence available on record and the deposition recorded in other case cannot be considered. There is no violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.
10. As P.W.1 Malook is a private witness whose evidence is inspiring confidence. The trial Court on the basis of evidence has rightly convicted the applicant/accused Dholan.
11. ' The scope of the revision is limited. In the revision, order can only be disturbed if suffers from illegality or perversity and the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases.
12. Where the interest of justice requires interference for the correction of illegality or perversity or gross miscarriage of justice the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked. The reviaional jurisdiction cannot be invoked if from the reading of the evidence some other view is possible. The judgment reported as Muhammad Azeem v. The State 1977 PCr.LJ 671 has distinguishable facts and not applicable to the present case.
13. ' In view of the above I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders of the Courts below and find no justification to interfere the same, therefore, the Revision Application is dismissed.