This revision arises from the judgment of the learned Sessions, Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby he, on 3rd June. 1979; rejected the appeal filed by Zahur Ahmad petitioner against the order of the learned Assistant Com--missioner, Ahmadpur East, by which he on 21st June, 1978, has convicted him under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to two years' R. T.
And a fine of Rs. 500 in default thereof to further R. I. For six months.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that he on 13th June, 1977 at 7 p. m. Got recovered two unlicensed rifles P. 1 and P. 2 by digging out the same from land situated near Basti Mashkian. It is alleged that these rifles were stolen from the Palace of Amir of Bahawalpur, about some months back. The F. I. R. Exh. P. B. Was lodged by Muhammad Iqbal, S. H. O., P. W. 3 and was recorded by Bashir Ahmad, Muharrir Head-----Constable (not produced) at 7.30 p. m. On the same day. At trial the prosecution produced three witnesses namely, Kaley Khan P. W. 1, Ashiq Hussain P. W.-2 and Muhammad Iqbal, Sub-Inspector P. W.
3. They stated that the petitioner, while in custody, led to the recovery of two unlicensed rifles P. 1 and P. 2 and got the same recovered, on 13th June, 1977.
3. The petitioner, when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that the case against him was due to party faction. He produced two witnesses in his defence, namely, Kaley Khan son of Haji Gaman. D. W. 1 and Hazoor Bakhsh, D. W. 2, who stated that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he was falsely implicated in this case.
4. I have appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution, in accordance with the rules of appreciation, laid down by the superior Courts in such like cases. I am of the view that the evidence produced be the prosecution is not worth reliance and the prosecution has failed tool prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, for the reasons that Kaley Khan P. W. 1 being an employee of Amir of Bahawalpur, is an interested witness. He is not the resident of the same vicinity. His house is at a distance of two furlongs from the place of recovery. He had appeared as a recovery witness against the petitioner in other cases. Ashiq Hussain p. W. 2 is also not the resident of the same vicinity. He too had appeared as recovery witness against petitioner in some other cases. So far as the investigating officer is concerned, he being interested in the fate of the case challaned by him, cannot be believed without independent corroboration, which lacks in this case.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I accept this revision; set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge. He is on bail. He is discharged from his bail bond.