' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---On the days of occurrence, i,e, 19-2-2010, Alamgir Khan, S.H.O./complainant (P.W.3) along with other police contingent while on mobile gasht, received information that, at anytime, huge quantity of arms and ammunitions would be smuggled through Flying Coach No,5444-IDS from Peshawar to Province of Punjab. On relying this information, the police party along with Excise personnel led Nakabandi on A.C. Chowk. When, in the meantime, at about 1730 hours, the suspected vehicle coming from Peshawar, was stopped for the purpose of checking. On cursory inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as Bakht Zada while the person sitting on the front seat disclosed his names as Syed Khalid All Shah and the third one disclosed his name as Javed, the present appellants. During the search of the vehicle, from the rear seat, two bags of gray colour, containing 6 rifles of .44 bore; 1 rifle of 7 mm along with 7 spare magazines; 2 pistols of .30 bore; 20 pin pistols of 25 bore; 500 live cartridges of 44 bore and 1000 live cartridges of .30 bore were recovered. Since all of them had failed to produce any valid licence, the instant criminal case was registered against them under sections 13/14 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, vide No,141; dated 19-2-2010, at Police Station Nowshera Cantt.
2. On completion of investigation, the appellants were sent to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nowshera for trial. The copies of the relevant documents under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Were supplied to them. The charge was accordingly framed against them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove the charge and substantiate the allegations levelled against the appellants, produced as many as six witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342 of the Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the parties and, on appraisal of evidence, convicted the appellants and sentenced them to three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs,10,000 each, or in default, to further undergo one month S.I each vide judgment dated 14-12-2012.
However, benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellants. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants namely, Javed, Bakht Zada and Syed Khalid Ali have come to this Court through their separate Criminal Appeals Nos. 632-P and 654-P/2012, which are'decided by this single judgment.
5. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the impugned judgment is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence and is also against the law and facts of the case, is based upon surmises and conjectures; that there are many material contradictions between the statements of the star witnesses of the prosecution, which create doubts in the recovery of alleged arms and ammunitions; that though the place of occurrence is a busy place but, despite of that, the complainant didn't bother to associate any of the private witness, which is mandatory and by not doing so, he has violated section 103 of the Cr.P.C.; that the local police in order to let-off the actual culprits made the appellants scapegoats by falsely implicating them in the instant case; that no test fire was made and without doing so, it couldn't be said that as to whether the alleged weapons, so recovered, were in workable condition or not, which is also mandatory in such like cases. Though the learned counsel for the appellants tried their level best to convince this Court regarding the outright acquittal of the appellants but, in the end, when they sensed that they, despite of their hectic efforts, couldn't succeed in this regard, they straightaway asked for reduction in sentence.
6. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State by highlighting the salient features of the case argued that the witnesses, examined by the prosecution, have consistently charged the . Appellant; that in the absence of any discrepancy in their evidence, charge against the appellant stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt and that the finding of the learned Trial Court being based on proper appraisal of evidence merits no interference.
7. The learned counsel for both the parties were heard and record of the case was perused.
8. Perusal of the record would reveal that there was prior information qua the smuggling of huge quantity of arms and ammunitions from Peshawar to Province of Punjab through Flying Coach No,5444- IDS and the appellants were arrested during the Nakabandi. Out of them,. Bakht Zada, appellant was the driver of the vehicle while Javed was its cleaner and the third one namely, Syed Khalid Ali Shah was their companion. If this Court presumes for a while that the appellants were not the actual culprits and the police involved them falsely but, when the huge quantity of arms and ammunition was being transported / smuggled from one province to another in a vehicle, at the relevant time, one of the appellants was its driver, the second one was its cleaner and the third one was their partner, how they could be absolved from the responsibility of the arms and ammunition, which was recovered by the police and neither this huge quantity of arms and ammunitions could be concealed without the consent / conscious knowledge of the appellants nor the said recovery could be planted against them by the police. Even otherwise, during the trial proceedings, they couldn't bring on record anything in black and white as could establish that the said huge quantity of arms and ammunitions were planted against them rather they also failed to produce any evidence in their defence in this regard. The stance of the learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged recoveries belonged to some other passengers, who had deboarded from the vehicle prior to its interception, is highly unbelievable. All of the prosecution witnesses, produced in the Court, gave a vivid account of the occurrence in the Court. There is no discrepancy in their statements as could create doubt in the prosecution version, notwithstanding, all of them were subjected to a searching cross-examination. There is also nothing on the record as could even remotely suggest that the incriminating articles were either planted or the appellants were falsely charged. The A arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants wouldn't make the recovery doubtful only on the ground that the recovery was not witnessed by the private persons, especially when, the appellants have failed to bring on record any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of police to falsely implicate them. It has time and again been held that the police officials are as good witnesses as the private witnesses are. Their statements can't be brushed aside merely on this ground. When, this being the position, this Court has no doubt in its mind as to the guilt of the appellants.
9. The next arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that no evidence was brought on the record regarding the fact that whether arms, so recovered, were serviceable or not would again have no substance at all as the armourer after examining all the arms had given his specific opinion in this regard and this fact of evidence goes unrebutted. Similarly non-sealing of weapons would again not be helpful to the appellants as the number of each weapon was given in the initial report and nothing was there in rebuttal.
10. Now, comes the question of quantum of sentence. The appellants, indeed, first offenders and the learned Trial Court, too, by keeping in mind this aspect of the case has taken a very lenient view while awarding them sentence for three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs,10,000 each, therefore, this court, in the circumstances of the case, doesn't feel persuaded for further reduction.
10(sic) For the reasons discussed above, these appeals being without any merit and substance are hereby dismissed. However, benefit of section 382-B, of the Cr.P.C., awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court, shall remain intact. The appellants in both the appeals, present in court on bail, are taken into custody, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are sent to judicial lock-up to undergo the remaining sentences.
11. Above are the reasons for the short order of this court of even date.