Aftab, petitioner, was tried under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, on the charge of keeping unlicensed pistol P.I by Magistrate 1st Class, Bhalwal.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Muhammad Aslam P.W.1, and Muhammad Saleem Khan, S.I. P.W.3, stated that at the eventful time pistol P.1 was recovered from the possession, of the petitioner. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the recovery of pistol P.I from him. He did not produce any witness in defence. The trial Court convicted him on 30-5-1983 under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to three years' R.I. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, on 11-12-1983. Hence this revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery witnesses have not stated that the petitioner was not holding any licence for keeping pistol P.1 and as such he could not have been convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. No one has appeared for the State.
5. I have considered the matter carefully and examined the statements of Muhammad Aslam P.W.1 and Saleem Khan P.W.3 in which they have stated nothing about the licence. They simply stated that pistol P.1 was recovered from him. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove that the petitioner was not holding any licence for the pistol recovered from him. Since there is nothing in the evidence that the petitioner was not holding any licence for that the pistol recovered from him was unlicensed, so the petitioner could not have been convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, there being no satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction of the petitioner. The revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge.