1. ' The applicant abovenamed, being aggrieved by judgment, dated 8th January, 1980 of the Sessions Judge, Nawabshah passed in Criminal Appeal No, 30 of 1979, by which judgment dated 30th October, 1978 of the Asstt. Sessions Judge, Moro in Sessions Case No, 295 of 1975 was confirmed, by which applicant has been convicted under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance and sentenced to suffer R.I. For one year and to pay fine of Rs, 1,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For 3 months more, has preferred the above petition, on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo. Of above petition.
2. ' The learned Advocate for the applicant in support of the above petition submitted, that recovery of the alleged pistol from the possession of the applicant is doubtful, even from the statement of P.W. Shah Nawaz, Mashir of the said recovery and furthermore, the said Mashir is an interested person, related to the complainant in the main murder case and as such his statement required independent corroboration, which is not at all available in the present case.
3. ' The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted, that no doubt P.W.
4. Shah Nawaz the Mashir of the alleged recovery is related to the complainant, but he is also related to the present applicant, and furthermore present applicant has alleged no specific enmity against him. In addition to this the statement of P.W. Shah Nawaz has been fully corroborated by P.W. Irshad Ahmed, S.H.O., against whom no enmity at all is alleged and as such prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present applicant and in view of the failure of the learned Advocate for the applicant to point out any illegality and/or material irregularity in both the impugned judgments, the above petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through both the impugned judgments and R & P of the learned trial Court.
6. I find that prosecution has established recovery of unlicensed pistol from the possession of the present applicant by the statement of P.W. Shah Nawaz, which has been fully corroborated by P.W.
7. Irshad Ahmed, S.H.O. The applicant has alleged no specific enmity against these P.Ws and the statement of both these P.Ws. Has remained unshaken in their cross-examination. The learned Advocate for the applicant was unable to point out any illegality and/or material irregularity in both the impugned judgments, and as such I see no reason to disagree with the conclusions and findings of both the learned lower Courts.
8. Therefore I find no merits in the above petition which is consequently dismissed. However, since the applicant has been facing trial right from 1975, I reduce the sentence awarded to the applicant by both the impugned judgments to the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the fine of Rs, 1,000 imposed on him by the impugned judgments and in case of failure of the applicant to pay the said fine, to suffer further R.I. For 3 months.
9. ' Since the applicant is on bail, I grant him 3 weeks' time from today to pay the fine imposed on him, by both the learned lower Courts, failing which his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the learned trial Court is directed to issue non-bailable warrants for his arrest and to remand him back to judicial custody, to serve out the sentence in lieu of fine, imposed by the impugned judgments of both the lower Courts.