' Ahmad Khan, petitioner, was tried under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for keeping unlicensed .12 bore gun P.1, which was recovered from him by Zawar Hussain, A.S.I., on 30-7-1983. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case prosecution produced four witnesses. Zawar Hussain, A.S.I., P.W. 1, Ghulam Muhammad Constable P.W. 2, and Ghulam Rasul, Constable, P.W.3, are the eye-witnesses of the recovery of unlicensed gun from the petitioner. They have supported the allegations against the accused/petitioner. The remaining evidence was/is of formal nature.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C, the petitioner denied the recovery of the gun from him.
He did not produce any evidence in defence. The trial Court convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default thereof two months' R.I. On 26-10-1986. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali, maintained the conviction and sentence of one year's R.I. But reduced the fine from Rs,2,000 to Rs,1,000 or in default thereof two months' S.I.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery witnesses are police officials; that no person from public was associated to witness the recovery; and that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the State has opposed him.
5. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that according to the prosecution case, the recovery was effected near Mauza Tanikhel and as such the police could associate the person/persons from public to witness the recovery of the unlicensed arm from the petitioner but this was not done. In the circumstance of the case, that the police party was on patrol duty when it recovered unlicensed gun from the petitioner, the police officials were naturally interested in the conviction of the petitioner/accused, so the rule of prudence requires independent corroboration of their statements which is not available.
6. For what has been stated above the revision is accepted. Giving him the benefit of doubt the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bond.