Jahan Khan P. W. 2 who are both inimical towards the petitioner and on that account no reliance should have been placed on their testimony. The only material discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the statement of Ahmad Khan P. W. 1 is that according to him statements of witnesses were recorded by Muhammad Akram P. W. In his Baithak whereas according to Jahan Khan P. W. 2 and Muhammad Akram P. W. 3 these statements were recorded in front of the petitioner's flour mill when the unlicensed revolver and bullets were recovered. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the statements of Jahan Khan and Muhammad Akram are accepted when there was no occasion for Muhammad Akram P. W. To have gone to the Baithak of Ahmad Khan P. W. 1 because the investigation of the case against the petitioner had been completed at the latter's flour mill. The learned counsel has in his view another case in which the petitioner has been convicted under section 224, P. P. C. As he had tried to escape from the lawful custody of Muhammad Akram after his arrest under section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. Since the petitioner has been tried separately in the two cases and the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence in these cases is also different, the facts of one case cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the other case. The discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the statements of witnesses were recorded at the place where the recovery of the unlicensed revolver and six bullets was effected or in the Baithak of Ahmad Khan P. W. 1 is not material inasmuch as it does not cast any doubt with regard to the recovery of unlicensed weapon and the bullets. Ahmad Khan's statement that Muhammad Akram had recorded the statements of witnesses in his Baithak does not appear to be correct because Muhammad Akram and Jahan Khan both have categorically stated that the said statements were recorded in front of the petitioner's flour mill immediately after the recovery. As noticed above the aforementioned statement of Ahmad Khan P. W. Does not adversely affect the prosecution case.
8. As for the enmity of Ahmad Khan and Jahan Khan P. Ws. It may be noticed that the petitioner has not been able to bring anything on record to show that Muhammad Akram H. C. Had merely acted as a too in the hands of the aforementioned prosecution witnesses and that th petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case by him at their instance. The case against the petitioner was registered on the report of Muhamma Akram after he had recovered the unlicensed revolver and bullets fro him. The enmity of Ahmad Khan and Jahan Khan P. Ws. With th petitioner, even if it be assumed that there was any such enmity, could not be pleaded as defence to the charge brought out against the petitioner on the initiative of Muhammad Akram. Even the solitary statement of Muhammad Akram, H. C., who had no animus against .The petitioner, would have been sufficient to prove the recovery of the illicit revolver and bullets from the petitioner's possession.
9. In view of what has been discussed above order of conviction passed against the petitioner is not assailable but in the matter of sentence, some modification appears to be necessary because the petitioner was convicted in 1966 and the order of sentence passed against him was suspended by this Court on 17-3-67. The petitioner had remained in jail for about 9 days when the order of sentence was suspended. The proviso of section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 which required that the punishment for possession of unlicensed fire-arms should not be less than one year was omitted by the West Pakistan Arms (Amendment Act) 1967 after the conviction of the petitioner by the learned trial Magistrate. The petitioner's sentence of imprisonment, therefore, can be reduced to a term of less than one year after the omission of the aforemehtioned proviso.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is suffering from tuberculosis and he has shown me a certificate issued by the medical Superintendent. S. Muhammad Hussain Government T. B. Sanitorium Samli on 3-12-79 to the effect that the petitioner was found to be suffering from bi-lateral pulmonary tuberculosis. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was released from jail in 1967 and it would amount to hardship for him to be sent to the jail again to suffer the unexpired portion of imprisonment especially because of his illness, I substitute the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the learned trial Magistrate with the sentence of fine of Rs, 1,000. The petitioner shall pay the amount of fine within a month failing which he shall undergo R. I. For six months. The revision petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of accordingly.