The appellant Shamsuddin son of Sher Muhammad by Caste, Sheeshgar, resident of Ward No. 6, Nawabshah has been convicted by the learned, Additional Sessions Judge, II-Khairpur, under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance, and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. For one year and pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default of fine to suffer R. I. For two months more for having been in possession of a revolver of '32 bore and live bullet, secured from pocket of his shirt on a search at the time of his apprehension.
2. The allegations against the appellant are that Mr. Qambar Ali, S. H. O. Along with his Police Constables Muhammad Qasim, Muhammad Rafique, Niaz Hussain and private persons Muhammad Hashim and Shah Bux, was patrolling on 25-10-1975. When they reached Chatan Shah at about 8-30 p. m. They saw three persons going ahead of them. The Police Party asked them to stop and on this, those three persons fired at the Police Party who in return also fired at them in self-defence and surrounded them and caught hold of two persons whereas the third one succeeded in running away. Mr. Qambar Ali, S. H. O. Inquired about their names and they disclosed their names to the present appellant and one Abdul Nabi son of Dur Muhammad resident of village Dur Muhammad Taluka Shahdadpur of District Sanghar. The Police Party recovered a '32 bore revolver from the possession of the appellant and a bullet from pocket of his shirt. The appellant had no licence and he was therefore arrested and a Mashirnama to this effect was prepared.
Muhammad Hashim and' Shah Bux acted as Mashirs. The S. H. O. Brought the accused to Police Station, Gambat and lodged such F. T. R. On behalf of the State against him and sent him in the Court. He has been convicted as above after his trial.
3. He has appealed against his conviction and his version is that he had gone to attend marriage of one Qalandar Bux Mahar near Gambat town and he along with one Abdul Nabi had gone to take tea in the morning time at a bus stop hotel. While they were coming out after taking tea, a constable came there who took them to Police Station, Gambat where Police foisted this case against him as well as against Abdul Nabi. He has not examined any witness in defence.
4. The prosecution has examined Mr. Qambar Ali, S. H O , P W. Mohammad Rafique, Police constable and Mashir Shah Bux. The S. H. O. In his deposition has not said that he before leaving Police Station for pat--rolling, made any entry of this kind in the Roznamcha of Police Station. He has also not produced either a copy of such entry or any other docu--mentary proof to the effect that he had actually left the police station at that hour. It is strange that the S. H. O. Has left for patrolling at 7-00 p m. From Gambat town where police station is situated but he has not picked any person from public of Gambat town to act as Mashir in case of any such occurrence. It has been pointed out that Gambat is a big town having status of a "Town" Committee where a good number of people are living. Usually independent persons from the public are taken whenever a Police party goes for patrolling so that they could act as Mashirs in case of necessity. It is very confusing as to why S. H.
O. Did not pick up any respectable person from Gambat town but instead preferred to take Shah Bux, who acted as Mushir though he belonged to a different Taluka i. e. Kotdiji of Khairpu A District. It also casts shadow of doubt on the whole case and does no inspire confidence as to why a person from different Taluka has been preferred to act Mashir rather than a respectable resident of Gambat town from where a Police party started for patrolling.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the judgment in this case is word by word same and could easily be termed as a carbon copy of the judgment in the Sessions Case No. 233/76 (248/75) State v. Abdul Nab! under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance, except that there is difference regarding alleged unlicensed arms as in the present case, it is revolver and a bullet and in the case of Abdul-Nabi, its D. B. B. L. Gun of '12 bore containing two live cartridges.
6. I have gone through the judgment of this case as well as the case, State v. Abdul Nab! and I find that the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant is perfectly correct.
7. The learned Assistant A: G. Frankly admits after going through both the judgments that some unusual procedure has been adopted which has made this case doubtful and he, therefore, does not support the conviction and sentence based on such mechanical procedure and not on evidence on the record.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted and conviction and sentence are set aside.