MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.- This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Campbellpur, whereby he, on 31.1.1975, convicted Muhammad Maskeen appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to two years' R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he was keeping unlicensed spear Ex.P.I with him on 13.6.1973. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Ch. Muhammad Rashid PW-1 stated that the appellant had produced spear Ex. P.I before him, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA. Amir Muhammad Shah AS1 PW2 had recorded the formal F.I.R. Ex.P.B./I. Nawab Khan PW-3 stated that the appellant had produced spear Ex.P.I before the police in his presence, which has taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA.
4. When examined under section 342 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of spear Ex.P.I from him. In defence, no- witness was produced.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was not holding any license to keep the spear and, as such, it cannot be said that the spear recovered from him was an unlicensed arm. The learned counsel for the State has frankly conceded that none of the witnesses has stated that the appellant has no license to keep the spear.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. If feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant for the reasons that keeping of a spear without license is an offence punishable under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. So the onus was on the prosecution to prove not only the possession of the spear by the appellant but also that he was not holding license to keep the same. So unless it was/is proved that the accused/appellant had no license to keep the spear with him, conviction under the Arms Ordinance was/is not possible. Since in the instant case, there is nothing in evidence to show that the spear recovered from the appellant was an unlicensed weapon, therefore, there is no option but to accept this appeal.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bonds.