Appellant Muhammad Ayub was tried by Miss Yasmin Abbasey, IInd Additional Sessions Judge (West), Karachi, for the offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, who found him guilty for the said offence and vide judgment dated 27-11-1989, sentenced him to suffer R.I. For three years. By this appeal filed under section 410, Cr.P.C., the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence.
2. On 23-1-1981 appellant Muhammad Ayub was arrested in Crime No.16 of 1981, Jackson P.S. Under section 302, P.P.C. After he surrendered before the S.H.O. Voluntarily. The appellant when interrogated volunteered to produce the crime weapon and he while in custody led Ch. Muhammad Tarique S.H.O. Jackson Police Station, Mashies. Miskeen Khan and Jamroz Khan to his house situated in Docks Colony and produced one revolver and three live bullets before the police officer. Since the appellant had no valid licence for the revolver and live bullets a separate case under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 (Crime No.17 of 1981) was registered against him at the same police station. After usual investigation the appellant was challaned in this case alongwith the main case of murder.
3. Charge under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. At the trial the prosecution examined Ch. Muhammad Tarique S.H.O. (P.W.1), and Miskeen Khan (P.W.2).
4. The appellant denied the case of the prosecution in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. His defence in his own words is as follows:- "The revolver was produced by me at Police Station, as I had snatched it from deceased Lal Muhammad at the time of incident of Crime No.60(16) of 1981."
The appellant did not examine himself on oath. He also led no defence.
5. On the assessm ent of evidence available on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and convicted him accordingly.
6. I have heard Mr. Arshad Ali Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Salman Ansari, learned counsel for the State. I have also gone through the record of this case carefully.
7. Ch. Muhammad Tarique S.H.O. (P.W.1) has testified the facts leading to the recovery of one revolver and three live bullets from the possession of the appellant. His evidence shows that the appellant while in custody led him and Mashirs Miskeen Khan and Jamroz Khan to his house and from his box he produced the revolver and three live bullets for which he had no valid licence. The evidence of Ch. Muhammad Tarique S.H.O. (P.W.1) has gone unchallenged and not a single question was put to him by the defence advocate in cross-examination.
8. The evidence of Ch. Muhammad Tarique S.H.O. (P.W.1) gets full t support from Miskeen Khan (P.W.2) who has acted as Mashir. Nothing is brought out in cross-examination to shake the credence of this witness who is completely an independent person and had no reason to depose falsely against the appellant. The recovery of unlicensed revolver and bullets from the possession of appellant was not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. He however, insisted that the said revolver and bullets were produced at the police station. This suggestion was, however, not put to Ch. Muhammad Tarique S.H.O. (P.W.1) who had made the recovery. Charge under section 13- E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 (not under section 13-D), was, therefore, proved against tilt; appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence are thus maintained, but the same are converted under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The sentence will, however, run concurrently with the sentence awarded to appellant in Crime No.16 of 1981, under section 302, P.P.C.
9. With this modification the appeal is otherwise dismissed.