Ahmad Hayat petitioner stands convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof to further R.I. For one month on the charge of keeping unlicensed gun on 16-7-1987 which was recovered from him by Aman Ullah Khan, S.I. P.W.4 in the presence of Abdul Hadi P.W.2 and Muhammad Iqbal P.W.3. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.'
2. Prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Nazir Hussain is a formal witness. Abdul Hadi and Muhammad Iqbal are the witnesses of recovery of gun from the petitioner. They did not support the prosecution case. Aman Ullah Khan S.I. P.W.4 stated that he had recovered gun from the petitioner. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied the charge He did not produce any witness in defence. The trial Court convicted him on 10-2-1988. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab on 13-4-1989. '
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two recovery witnesses in their statements have not supported the recovery of gun from the petitioner and that the Sub-Inspector was/is an interested witness. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this revision.
4. I have considered the matter. I find that there were 3 witnesses of the recovery of unlicensed gun from the petitioner. Two of them namely Abdul Hadi and Muhammad Iqbal who were public men have refused to support the recovery of gun from the petitioner. However the Sub-Inspector has supported the prosecution case against the petitioner. He being naturally interested in the conviction of the petitioner, I feel that no implicit reliance can be placed on his solitary statement.
For these reasons, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
Pursuant to the above discussion, this revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bonds.