' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot whereby he on 31-3-1985 convicted Farooq Azam appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to six months R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he was keeping dagger P.1 without any valid authority or permit.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses, out of whom Mahmood Ahmed P.W.1 and Muhammad Riaz S.H.O. P.W.3 stated that on 4-7-1982, the appellant had led to the recovery of dagger P.1 from his residential house for which he was not having any licence or permit.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of dagger from him. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
5. The ,learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the recovery witnesses are not reliable and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that Mahmood Ahmad P.W.1 and Muhammad Riaz P.W.3 are quite independent witnesses, having no it-will with the appellant. I do not see any inherent infirmity in their statement. The appellant did not care to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons I am satisfied that the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. It is, however, directed that the sentence awarded to Farooq Azam appellant in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in the main murder case.