' Yaru, son of Malku, caste Vains, aged 46 years, resident of village Mangni, police station Bhagtanwala, Tehsil and District Sargodha, was convicted by Syed Muhammad Mohsin Sherazi, Magistrate invested with powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide his judgment. Dated the 24th June, 1980 under section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, for keeping in his possession a .303 rifle and two live .303 bullets and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who, on the revision petition filed by Muhammad Khan, enhanced his sentence to four years' rigorous imprisonment by his judgment, dated the 29th September, 1980. He has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the legality and propriety of the decision of the learned appellate Court. The matter touching notice given to the petitioner by this Court for further enhancement of sentence (Criminal Revision No,1019 of 1980) will also be disposed of by this judgment.
2. , The events and circumstances leading to the involvement of the petitioner in the case which resulted in his conviction, as alleged by the prosecution, may be shortly stated in the following words. A case for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 143, 325 and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code for assault upon Muhammad Khan was registered against Yaru, petitioner and others vide report No,6 on the 11th January, 1977 at Police Station Bhagtanwala. The petitioner was said to have indulged in ineffective firing with a .303 rifle at the time of assault. The police was after him. At about 1-00 a.m., on the 21st January, 1977 he was spotted by Ata Ullah Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police and the then Station House Officer, Police Station Bhagtanwala. P.W.4, near Mangni Bridge. At that moment he was accompanied by his co-accused in the assault case, namely, Noor, son of Muhammad, who was armed with a gun. Ata Ullah Khan arrested both the petitioner and Noor .303 rifle, Exh.P.1, and two live .303 bullets. Exhs.P.2/1-2, were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and were taken possession of by Ata Ullah Khan vide memorandum, Exh.P.A., which was attested by Mian Ahmad, P.W.1, and Dildar, P.W.2. Ata Ullah Khan drafted report, Exh.P.B., and sent it to police station where on its basis formal first information report, Exh.P.B./1, was registered by Iftikhar Ahmad, Moharrir Head Constable P.W.3. As the petitioner had no licence to keep the rifle and bullets with him he was challaned for commission of offence punishable under section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965.
3. The petitioner did not plead guilty to the charge of keeping in his possession the rifle and two bullets without a licence on the 21st January, 1977. He disclaimed recovery and ownership of the rifle, Exh.P.1, and bullets, Exhs.P.2/1-2. Pleading his innocence he maintained that he had been implicated in false case due to enmity. He produced four witnesses in defence to show his false involvement in the case.
4. Believing the prosecution evidence and considering the defence evidence to be untrustworthy the learned trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated in the beginning of this judgment. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who enhanced his sentence to four years' rigorous imprisonment.
5. It may be mentioned that Noor was challaned for having been found in unlawful possession of a gun and two cartridges. On his pleading guilty to the charge in the case set up against him he was convicted under section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs,100 or in default of payment thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for two months by Mr. Bashir Ahmad Dogar, Magistrate, Sargodha, vide his judgment, dated the 16th June, 1977. Copy Exh.P.F.
6. Apart from disputing the correctness of the finding of learned Courts below touching possession of the rifle and bullets by and recovery thereof from the petitioner, his learned counsel complained against the discriminatory attitude adopted by the learned Courts below against him in matter of punishment awarded to him. He pointed out that whereas Noor, whose case was not distinguishable from that of the petitioner, had been let off with minor sentence of fine of Rs,100 the penalty imposed upon the petitioner for the commission of the same offence as had been committed by Noor was much more severe. It is difficult to find fault with the finding of fact on the point of recovery of the rifle and bullets from the possession of the petitioner recorded by the learned trial Court and accepted by the learned appellate Court because of the disinterested testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The two recovery witnesses, Mian Ahmad, P.W.1. And Dildar, P.W.2, lived not far away from the place where the petitioner was apprehende with the rifle and bullets. 'They are not proved to have any hostility towards the petitioner. The learned trial Magistrate gave good reason for not placing reliance upon the defence evidence. The testimony o Muhammad Younas, D.W.1, constituted no more than hearsay evidence.
' The depositions of Shaukat Hayat, D.W.2, Dost Muhammad, D.W.3. And Caman, D.W.4, were to the effect that when Yaru had been produced before the investigating officer in another case he had no weapon with him. The learned trial Magistrate declined to accept as true that Yaru had been produced by him before the police on the 12th January, 1977, and that he had been kept it illegal custody till the 21st January, 1977, when the present case was registered against him. The decision of the learned trial Court and of the learned appellate Courts has not been shown to be based on any misreading of evidence. Therefore, it is not open to interference in revision by this Court.
7. The question relating to the quantum of sentence needs consideration. He suffered detention for three months and eleven days during trial of his case. He had already passed sentence extendin over a period of ten months and three days in jail when he was released on bail by this Court.
However, difficulty in his case is tha as required by the proviso to section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, the minimum sentence which has to be awarded for possession of .303 bore rifle and bullets to the petitioner is three years. No such minimum limit to the sentence is set down by law in case of possession of gun and its ammunition which were recovered from Noor. Therefore, the sentence of fine of Rs,100 given to Noor was legally in order. Nevertheless, the terms of sentence to be imposed upon the petitione cannot be for less than three years. I believe the sentence of thre years will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the petitioner's sentenc is reduced from four years' to three years' rigorous imprisonment. Th time he spent in detention before he was convicted by the learned tria Magistrate will be adjusted against the period of sentence. With thi modification in the sentence his revision petition is dismissed. Th notice giyen to him to show cause against enhancement of sentence I discharged. He will be arrested and made to undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence.