The facts leading to this Criminal Revision, briefly, are that on 31-10-1987, the petitioner was found in possession of a revolver and 17 live bullets. So he was arrested by Haji Habib Ullah, S.I. On the report of Haji Habib Ullah S.1./S.H.O. Case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 was registered at Police Station Malka Hance. After investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court of Assistant Commissioner Pakpattan Sharif. To prove its case, prosecution produced four witnesses. Sakhi Muhammad P.W.1, Haji Habib Ullah P.W.3 and Muhammad Yousaf P.W.4 Haji Habib Ullah P.W.3 and Muhammad Yousaf P.W.4 are the witness of the recovery of revolver and bullets from the petitioner.
They have supported the prosecution case. Ijaz Akram A.S.I. Had recorded the F.I.R.
2. The petitioner/accused denied the charge. He raised plea of false implication. He did not produce any evidence in defence. He did not give evidence on oath in disproof of the charge against him. The trial Court convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to one year's R.I. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 10-5-1990. However, after the rejection of the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has released the petitioner/accused on bail. Since the bail order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore, I summoned him to quote the provision of law under which he had released the accused on bail after the rejection of appeal against his conviction and sentence. He appeared before me and quoted section 426(2), Cr.P.C.
And section 382-A, Cr.P.C. He was asked to read these provisions of law to the Court. On reading the same, he realized that release of a convict person after the rejection of his appeal was not lawful and he had committed legal error. An examination of the relevant provisions of law contained in Criminal Procedure Code will show that the trial Court alone may suspend the execution of sentence and release the accused on bail in order to enable him to file appeal in the following two cases:-- (i)Under section 426(2), Cr.P.C.--- When the offence in which the accused is convicted, is bailable; (ii)Under section 382(A), Cr.P.C.--- When the sentence awarded by it is less than a year.
The appellate Court has no legal authority to suspend the execution of sentence after the rejection of appeal by it in order to enable the convict to file revision before the High Court. Mr. Pervez Ali Chawla, the learned Additional Sessions Judge assures to be careful in future.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the case as the bare reading of recovery memo. Exh. P.A. Shows that the signatures of the recovery witnesses were obtained on a blank paper and thereafter the contents of the memo. Were written on it. Learned Additional Advocate-General has supported the impugned judgment.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the names and particulars of the recovery witnesses are written over the words. For the facility of reference, the same are reproduced as under:-- Saqhi Muhsmmad s/o Ibrahim ---QOUM--- Bhatti Rajpot Muhammad Yousaf 320 Sakna Chak 68/D Thana Malik Hanas Thana Malik Hanas Witness Witness Saqhi Muhammad Muhammad Yousaf This is certainty something abnormal. Ordinarily the names and the particulars of the witnesses are given beneath the word --- Guwa Shuda--- am convinced that since no margin was left in between the words--- Guwa Shuda--- and the signatures of the witnesses for writing particulars of the witnesses, so the same were written over the words --- Guwa Shuda---. The manner in which the police has prepared the recovery memo. Exh. P.A. Casts doubts upon the conduct of the Investigating Officer. I feel that, in the circumstances of the case, it would be highly unsafe to sustain the conviction of the petitioner. Needless to add that for giving an accused person benefit of doubt more than one circumstances are not required. If there is one circumstance, which creates reasonable doubt in a reasonable and prudent mind with regard to the truth of the charge, the same may render the case as whole doubtful.
Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted and giving him the benefit of doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He stands discharged of the bail bonds.