1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal is sought from the judgment dated 30th June, 1979 of the Peshawar High Court, whereby the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under the N.-W.
2. F. P. Mining Concession Rules, 1976, was upheld.
3. According to the learned counsel Gul Sherin a Chowkidar, Taza Gul a neighbour (Mohallahdar) and Amir Khurshid a brother of the petitioner were tried with him on the allegation as mentioned in the relevant F. I. R: that the accused were involved in mining emeralds in contravention of the said Rules from the land underneath the petitioner's house and further that the emeralds were being separated and recovered from earth and stone in the house of Taza Gul. Gul Sherin and Taza Gul bad admitted the allegations and explained their conduct by stating that they had done so at the instance of the petitioner. The learned trial Magistrate after recording the evidence (which included the deposition of Mr. Ziarat Khan, Assistant Commissioner, Swat, under whose supervision the raid was conducted in the said house) finding all of them guilty except Amir Khurshid, convicted and awarded them various sentences. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge maintained the findings of guilty and convictions. The sentences of Gul Sherin and Taza Gul were reduced. The petitioner only filed a revision petition in the High Court. Gul Sherin and Taza Gul did not challenge their conviction any further. A learned Single Judge affirmed the findings of fact and while holding that the N.-W. F.
4. P. Mining Concession Rules, 1976 were applicable to the case, upheld the conviction of the petitioner. How--ever,, his sentence was also reduced from two years' R. I. To one year R. I. And a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default thereof further R. I. For nine months.
5. Learned counsel, has in support of this petition raised two-fold con--tentions : (1) that the N.-W. F. P.
6. Mining Concession Rules, 1976 were not applicable to the locality from where the emeralds were allegedly being mined-the house of the petitioner is stated to be situated in Mohallah, Rajabad, Mangora, District Swat, and (2) that the evidence was not enough to render a finding of guilty.
7. Learned counsel also contended that notwithstanding the reduction of sentence by the High Court, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year is harsh and according to him merited further reduction.
8. With the help of the learned counsel we have gone through the relevant notification relied upon by both the sides which established that the N.-W. F. P. Mining Concession Rules, 1976 were applicable in Mangora, District Swat. Learned counsel made request that even if Mangora is included in the District Swat of Malakand Division, Province of N.-W. F. P., he should be allowed more time to produce some material to show that the laws applicable to the Province of N: W.F. P. ,are not applicable in Mangora. This petition was earlier heard on 1st April, 1980 and on an argument then raised by the learned counsel notice was issued to the Advocate-General, N.-W. F. P., with regard to the vires of west Pakistan Regulation of Mines and Minerals Development Act, 1958. The petitioner had sufficient time. No justification has been made out for an adjournment. We are satisfied that the N.-W. F. P., Mining Concession Rules, 1976 we applicable to the locality concerned in the present case. On merits, all the arguments raised by the learned counsel relate to appreciation of evidence. The concurrent findings of fact by the three learned Courts do not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is neither unlawful nor improper. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.