Akhtar petitioner was convicted on 4th October, 1969, under sec--tion 13, Ordinance XX of 1965, by learned S. D. M., Wazirabad, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for keeping in his possession an unlicensed rifle and five cartridges. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, on 7th November, 1969.
2. In order to prove the case against the petitioner, the prosecution examined Fateh Muhammad (P.
W. 1), Riyasat Ali (P. W. 2) and Shaukat Ali S. L (P. W. 4). The petitioner denied the allegation and offered to produce evidence, in defence. He examined Ghulam Sarwar, Sardar and Mirza in his defence. The petitioner submitted an application on 17th February, 1969, which was to the effect that the case under Arms Ordinance was an offshoot of case titled The State v. Akhtar etc. Under section 307, P. P. C. And the cane under section 307, P. P. C. Was investi--gated by Crimes Branch, which moved for the cancellation of the case. It was prayed that case under Arms Ordinance be kept pending till the cancellation order' was passed in the said case. No order was passed on this application and it was ordered to be placed on the file. The petitioner had moved this application on the day he was ordered to 0dduce evidence in defence. He moved another application on 17th March, 1969. It was stipulated in the said application that the case under section 307, P. P. C. Was investigated by Niaz Ahmad, Inspector Police, Crimes Branch, and in that case rifle was alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner and the Investigating Officer found the recovery as false and fabricated. A prayer had been made that Inspector Crimes, Branch be summoned with the file of the said case. This application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was granted two/three adjournments and the application was made with delay. The petitioner moved another application 'on 27th September, 1969. The Court was again informed that the case under section 307, P. P. C. Was cancelled and consigned on 25th August, 1969. Request was made for summoning the file of the said case. No order was passed and it was simply ordered "Put up the file". This application was not finally disposed of. It was the case of the petitioner that the rifle, which was shown to have been recovered from the petitioner on 11th September, 1968 in case under Arms Ordinance, was shown to have been recovered from the petitioner on 10th September, 1968 in case under section 307, P. P. C. And it clearly established that in the present case the rifle had been falsely planted on the petitioner.
3. The challan was submitted in Court on 22nd September, 1968. The prosecution was able to conclude the evidence on 17th February, 1969 after ten adjournments. The petitioner, submitted an application on 17th February, 1969 on the day he was told to produce the evidence. He submitted the second application on 17tb March, 1969. It was the second date for producing the evidence. The learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the petition. The evidence of Inspector, Police, Crimes Branch was material for determining the issue involved in this case. No order was passed on the third application, which was moved on 27th September, 1968 after the cancellation of the case. These circum--stances resulted in miscarriage of justice and the petitioner was deprived from producing very material piece of evidence. Under these circum--stances, the impugned orders passed by Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be upheld. The revision petition is accepted and the impugned judgments of the trial Court and the Appellate Court aside.
It would not be proper to pass an order for remand as a period of more than eleven years has already elapsed. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail and is discharged of his bail bond.