1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- By this acquittal appeal the appellant has questioned the judgment, dated 18-1-2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-III, Khairpur whereby he acquitted the respondent in Criminal Case No,3 of 2006 in Crime No,3 of 2006 under section 13(e), Arms Ordinance, 1965.
2. ' The case of the prosecution in nut-shell is that the respondent was arrested in Crime No,171 of 2005 under section 302, P.P.C. Of Police Station, Baberloi and after his arrest, he led to the police party to his house situated at vacant plot at Therhi town and took out an unlicensed Pistol No,22-LR along with magazine and surrendered it before Shah Zaman S.1.P. In presence of Mashirs, as such a separate crime under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, was registered against him and he was sent to face trial under the aforesaid offence.
3. ' After receipt of the challan learned Magistrate proceeded with the matter and recorded the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as the statement of respondent under section 342, Cr.P.C. And after hearing of the learned counsel or the parties, acquitted the respondent vide judgment stated above; hence the present appeal.
4. ' I have heard the learned State Counsel for appellant. He vehemently contended that the prosecution has produced cogent, convincing and plausible evidence regarding recovery of crime weapon, which did not receive any material discrepancy from the defence side, as such recovery was established but the learned Magistrate after relying on minor contradiction acquitted the respondent and acquittal of the respondent will reflect on the main case, which is pending before the Sessions Court, as such the judgment passed by learned Magistrate, may be reversed.
5. ' I have considered the arguments advanced behalf of the appellant and have gone through the evidence available on record with his assistance.
6. As per Mashirnama of recovery vide Exh.4-A the pistol allegedly was recovered at the instance of respondent near from the date trees, which fact has not been, supported by P.W. Abdul Ghaffar who deposed about the recovery of alleged pistol under the roots of date trees by digging the earth. Another material discrepancy in the recovery of alleged pistol is that as per Mashirnama of recovery, the alleged pistol was recovered from him from open plot in front of the house of the respondent and Shah Zaman S.I.P./Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has also admitted that the said pistol was recovered from the corridor of the house of the respondent when police entered in his house without knocking the door. This is another version brought on record regarding the recovery of crime weapon from the open plot in the house of the respondent and that too from the corridor of his house. These contradictions in recovery of the pistol deposed by the material witnesses is of much significance and the learned Magistrate rightly took note of the same while appraising the evidence and no discrepancy appeared in appraisal of the evidence by him. The main discrepancy as discussed above in the recovery of the crime weapon, in anyway, could not be treated as minor or trivial discre pancy so as to ignore it. The second limb of the arguments advanced by learned State Counsel that the acquittal of the respondent, will reflect on the main murder case, which is pending adjudication before Sessions Court, has also no force for the reason that the evidence in the murder case will be recorded independently by the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court may form independent view about the recovery of the crime weapon on the basis of the evidence brought on the record of that murder case and the learned Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge who is trying the murder case, is not bound with the observation made by the learned Magistrate in the present case regarding the recovery of crime weapon.
7. ' For all the aforesaid reasons and circumstances, I do not find it a case, calling for interference in the judgment passed by learned Magistrate. The appeal has, therefore, no merits and is hereby dismissed summarily.