Asif Mehmood petitioner stands convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 on the charge of keeping unlicensed Chhuri, and sentenced to one year's R.I.
2. Prosecution produced two witnesses. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.1 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.2 supported the recovery of Chhuri from the petitioner. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He did not admit the recovery of Chhuri from him. He did not produce any witness in defence.
3: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the blade of the Chhuri was 4" or more than that. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the Appellate Court.
4. I have considered the matter. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that there is no legal evidence that the blade of the Chhuri recovered from the petitioner was 4" or more than that. The recovery memo. Being not a substantive piece of evidence cannot be read in aid of the statements of the recovery witnesses. For these reasons, I feel that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
For what has been said above, the revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.