' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Appellant Muhammad Farooq through, the instant appeal has challenged the judgment dated 30-9-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali in a case F.I.R. No,93/89 dated 28-9-1989 under sections 13 and 13-B of Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 registered with Police Station Kalabagh, District Mianwali whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-- ' Under section 13/20/65-A.O.
' Seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs,50,000. In default thereof to further undergo two years simple imprisonment. Under section 13-B/20/65. A.O.
' Fourteen years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 28-9-1989 at about 10-00 a.m., the I/S.H.O., Police Station Kalabagh was present at Railway Bridge Kalabagh along with other police officials, when appellant/accused came there having a box with him and on suspicion, he was apprehended. He was asked to open the box and on opening the same, one Kalashnikov with four magazines, one .30 bore pistol automatic, three 32 bore pistols, one dagger, 290 rounds of Kalashnikov, 50 light rounds of Kalashnikov, 50 rounds of 7 mm rifle, one Bandoliar, 73 rounds of 32 bore pistol, 32 rounds of .30 bore pistol, one life jacket, one table cloth, one blanket, one vest coat and one lock with keys were recovered from his possession.
3. The police investigated the case and submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Before the trial Court. The learned trial Court framed the charge to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Akhtar Hussain, HC (P.W.1), Muhammad Sher, LHC No,975 (P.W.2). Muhammad Younas, A.S.-I. (P.W.3). The prosecution also examined Muhammad Iqbal, C-No,585.
5. After recording the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded wherein he denied the recovery of the above said articles from him and replied that Muhammad Ali Inspector planted the above said weapons upon him just to show his efficiency. He did not opt to produce any defence evidence nor appeared under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of the allegations levelled against him.
6. The learned trial Court, after conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that all the witnesses are police officials and in this way there is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. By not associating any public witness, as the place of recovery is a public place. One P.W. Ashiq Husaain could not appear before the trial Court for recording his evidence as he was reported to be paralyzed whereas the statement of the complainant/I/S.H.O. Was also not recorded as he was stated to be expired and in absence of the statements of both the P.Ws. The case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the recoveries are planted one.
8. Conversely, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt against the appellant to the hilt. There is no violation of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. As in suck-like cases police officials are the true witnesses.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. Due to the death of the Investigating Officer the prosecution produced Muhammad Younas, A.S.-I. To prove the investigation and signatures on the recovery memos. In order to prove the recoveries i.e,box Exh. P .1 , one Kalashnikov Exh.P.2, with four magazines Exh.P.3/1-4, one .30 bore pistol Exh.P.4, one .32 bore pistol Exh.P.5, another .32 bore pistol Exh.P.6, .32 bore pistol Exh.P.7, one dagger Exh.P.8, 290 rounds of Kalashnikov Exh.P.9/1-290, 50 rounds of Kalashnikov Exh.P-10/1-50, 50 rounds of 7 nun rifle Exh.P.11/1-50, 73 live cartridges of .32 bore pistol Exh.P.12/1- 73,32 cartridges of .30 bore pistol Exh.P.13/-1-32, one life jacket Exh.P.14, one cloth for table Exh.P.15, one blanket Exh.P.16, one vest coat Exh.P.17, one cloth for razai Exh.P.18 and one lock Exh.P.19, the prosecution produced two witnesses namely Akhtar Hussain, HC No,884 as (P.W.1) and Muhammad Sher, LHC 575 (P.W.2). Both the P.Ws. Have fully supported the recoveries and they were consistent regarding time, place and mode of recovery. There is no discrepancy or contradiction in-between the statements of the P.Ws.
Their statements are confidence-inspiring and there is no reason to discard their testimony. The contention' of the learned counsel for he appellant regarding non-compliance of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is also misconceived. Suffice it to say that in such-like cases compliance of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is not mandatory. The contention that the statements of the P.Ws.
Are contradictory to each other has no force as the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any such discrepancy or contradiction on the file. In view of the above, the prosecution has proved it case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant. For what has been discussed above this appeal has no force.
11. Adverting to the quantum of sentence, I find that the sentence awarded to the appellant is too harsh as the case was registered in 1989 and decided in the year 1998 and the appellant has faced the agony of protracted trial for a long period of ten years, the appellant deserves leniency, therefore, by taking a lenient view, I reduce the sentence of the appellant to three years and fine to Rs,20,000 in default thereof undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
12. With this modification, this appeal is dismissed.