The facts leading to tire filing of this revision are that the complainant Saifullah Khan had got a case registered against the respondent Javed Khan and some others with Police Station Saddar, Mianwali, for the murder of one Saifullah Khan. The respondent was arrested in the case. During investigation he led to the recovery of gun P.1 for which he could not produce any licence, therefore, a separate case against him under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance was registered. He was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, who vide his judgment dated 17-3-1988 gave him the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the charge under the Arms Ordinance.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the respondent was proved and the learned trial Court had erred in law by not relying upon the statement of Saifullah Khan, P.W.1.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The gun P.1 was recovered at the instance of the respondent from the graveyard while he was in custody. The recovery memo. Was attested by Saifullah Khan P.W.1 and Ghulam Sarwar, P.W. Saifullah Khan, P.W., was cross-examined during the trial and it has come on record that he was not the resident of the locality from where the gun was recovered. Similarly, there is a discrepancy between the statement of Saifullah Khan and Nisar A.I, Inspector/I.O., P.Ws.1 and 2, respectively, with regard to the time of recovery. It has also come in evidence that there was longstanding enmity between Saifullah Khan, P.W. And the respondent. The gun was recovered from a place which was not in the exclusive possession of the respondent. In these circumstances, I find that the trial Court has rightly assessed the evidence and given the benefit of doubt to the respondent. Resultantly, the revision fails which is dismissed.