The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12-8-1990 whereby Gulshad Hassan AM, Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, preferred against his conviction by Ghulam Hussain, Magistrate 1st Class Mandi Bahauddin vide judgment, dated 25-7-1990, sentencing the petitioner to two years' R.I. Under section 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant criminal appeal are that the appellant was in police custody in murder case when he made disclosure and got effected recovery of blood- stained dagger from new Rasool Graveyard. Appellant could not produce any licence to keep the said dagger into his possession and he was sent to face trial under section 13 of Arms Ordinance.
3. On 15-1-1990, learned trial Court framed the charge under section 13 of Arms Ordinance against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution produced Shamas-ud-Din (P.W.1), Abdul Hamid (P.W.2) and Muhammad Aslam Butt, S.I./S.H.O. As P.W.3. The dagger was produced in Court as P.1. Recovery memo. Is Exh.P.A. Complaint Exh. P.B. And site plan of place of recovery is Exh. P.C. After the close of prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Who stated that the instant case was registered against him in connivance with the police, he was innocent and showed inclination to adduce defence evidence and depose on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In defence evidence he produced Nazir Ahmad Khan D.W.1 and Haji Noor Ahmad D.W.2 but on 26-3-1990 he made statement and declined to appear as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court after scanning the evidence and hearing arguments of learned counsel of the parties convicted the petitioner as indicated above.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any perversity in the impugned judgment. The conviction of the petitioner is based on an evidence that is not impeachable in any manner. The P.Ws. Are consistent and credible in their deposition in respect of the recovery of the dagger. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the P.Ws. Had motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The discrepancies and inconsistencies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the testimony of the P.Ws. Are of inconsequential nature and do not help the case of the petitioner in any manner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the alternative submitted that the petitioner was extended the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And that as he has already suffered over one year and two months detention, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
7. The present criminal revision petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed but as sentence awarded is only two years and as the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the petitioner, and as he has already suffered imprisonment of one year and over two months, therefore, the sentence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. He is on bail his bail bonds stand discharged.