ASJAD JAVAID GHURAL, J.---Through the above captioned criminal appeals the appellants Suleman Haider and Naseem Abbas have challenged the vires of judgment dated 05.10.2019 pass ed by the learned Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court, Faisalabad in case FIR No.5 dated 12.02.2019, in respect of offences under Sections 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, 13(2)(a)/20/65 Punjab Arms Ordinance and 7 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 registered at Police Station, C.T .D, Faisalabad whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:
(i) Appellant Suleman Haider; Under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act Rigorous imprisonment for five years.
Under Section 13(2)(a)/20/65 of Punjab Arms Ordinance Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.50,000 and in default thereof to further undergo SI for three months.
(ii) Appellant Nadeem Abbas; Under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act Rigorous imprisonment for five years.
The appellants were extended the benefit of Section 382-B Cr. P. C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently .
2. The prosecution story unfolded in the crime report (Ex.PB) registered on the complaint of Liaqat Ali, ASI, (PW-5) is that on 12.02.2019 he along with other corporals was present at Fish Farm Chowk Satiana Road, Faisalabad in search of proclaimed offenders, when a spy informed regarding two persons namely Suleman Haider and Naseem Abbas belonging to proscribed organization "Tehreek-e-Jaf faria Pakistan" were standing at Rajbah Road under the main electricity transmission line, in doubtful condition. Accused Naseem Abbas was holding a bag in his right hand. On receipt of this information, at about 2.10 p.m. he along with his comp anions reached at the spot and found two persons standing there, who on seeing the police party tried to skip away , however , they were apprehended. Upon personal search one non-electric detonator , pistol 30-bore along with magazine, five bullets and cash Rs.430/- was recovered from the possession of appellant Suleman Haider , while appellant Naseem Abbas got recovered safety fuse and black powder from the bag being held by him.
3. Muhammad Arif, Inspector (PW-7) took all necessary steps of initial investigatio n. On 15.02.2019, Ahsan Raza Corporal handed over to him, a printout of notification (P.1) regarding the proscription of "Tehreek-e-Jaf faria", which he took into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P.C. On 19.02.2019, he sent the appellants to jail on judicial remand. On 26.02.2019 he prepared incomplete challan and sent it to Court.
4. The prosecution produced 07-witnesses. The appellants, in their statements recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. denied and controverted all the allegations levelled against them. They did not opt to make statements under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., however the appellant Suleman Haider produced one witness Mst. Bushra Rehman in his defence.
5. Learned trial Court, upon conclusion of the trial,, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above, hence this criminal appeal.
6. At the very outset, learned counsels for the appellants submit that they do not challenge conviction of the appellants and made a prayer to suitably reduce their sentence on account of their being the first offenders; that the prosecution has failed to establish any contact of the appellants with the proscribed organization as alleged for; that the appellants have already faced the miseries of trial before the Trial Court and this Court as well.
7. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State has shown grace stating that if the conviction is maintained the sentence is always a prerogative of the Court.
8. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution had produced Liaqat Ali, ASI (PW-5), complainant, who while appearing in the dock of court room reiterated the contents of the crime report stating that on 12.02.2019 at about 2.00 p.m. he along with other police officials was present at Fish Farm Chowk Satiana Road, Faisalabad in search of proclaim ed offenders, when he received a spy information that the appellants belonging to proscribed organization "Tehreek-e-Jaf faria Pakistan" were standing at Rajbah Road, under the main electricity transmission line, in dubious condition. On receipt of this information he along with his companions reached at the spot and found two persons standing there, who on seeing the police party tried to skip away , however , they were apprehended. Upon personal search one non-electric deton ator, pistol 30-bore along with magazine, five bullets and cash Rs.430/- was recovered from the possession of appellant Sulethan Haider , while appellant Naseem Abbas got recovered safety fuse and black powder from the bag being held by him. Muhammad Bilal Corporal No.1047 (PW-6) deposed in line with the complainant. During cross-examination they remained firm and consistent qua date, time, B place, mode and manners of the occurrence and denied every suggestion put by the defence in negation of the said occurrence.
9. Muhammad Saeed, Bomb Disposal Technician, (PW-1) examined the case property i.e. non-electric detonator , safety fuse and black powder recovered from the appellants and prepared report Ex.PA, according to which all the above said items can be used for blast. Muhammad Arif Inspector , (PW-7/ Investigating Officer found the appellants to be involved in the alleged occurrence.
10. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to connect the appellants with the commission of charge as alleged for. No doubt all the witnesses were police officials but their testimonies cannot be discarded merely on this score of being public functionaries in particular when the defence has failed to bring on record any material that the said official witnesses have any bias against the appellants. Even the appellants in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. did not utter even a single word qua the biasness or enmity of police officials with them.
There is no cavil to the proposition that the evidence of official witnesses is as good as of private witnesses. A chain of evidence right from the arrest of the appellants, recovery of non-electric detonator , pistol 30-bore along with magazine, five bullets, safety fuse, black powder and their onward transmission to the office of Bomb Disposal Squad has established beyond any shadow of doubt that the appellants were in possession of explosive substances. Forensic evidence is in line and it fully strengthened the prosecution version. In the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the appellants. Even otherwise, learned counsels for the appellants have not pressed the conviction of the appellants and upon our own evaluation of the evidence on record, we have no legitima te exception to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court qua the conviction of the appellants.
11. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the appellants are the first offenders and the prosecution remained unable to establish their contact with any proscribed organization and even the Investigating Officer admitted in cross-examination that he did not collect any proof qua the link of the appellants with any proscribed organization. We deem it appropriate to maintain the conviction of the appellants in offences under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act but modify their sentence of imprisonment to 21/2 years instead of five years as awarded by the learned Trial Court. They are entitled to get the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Conviction and sentence of appellant Suleman Haider under section 13(2)(a)/20/65 Punjab Arms Ordinance is maintained. The fine awarded to the said appellant and the sentence in lieu thereof shall also remain intact. Both the sentences of the appellant Suleman Haider shall run concurrently .
12. The epitome of above discussion is that both the above titled appeals are without any merit, the same stand dismissed with the reduction in their sentences in the manners as stated above.