This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Additional 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 Exh.P.1 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 P.W.1 stated that the appellant had produced spear Exh.P.1. Before him, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.A. Amir Muhammad Shah A.S.I. p.W.2 had recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P311. Nawab Khan P.W.3 stated that the appellant had produced spear Exh.P.1 before the police in his presence, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. PA.
4. When examined under section 342 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of spear Exh.P.1 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 licence 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 had no licence to keep the spear.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant for the reasons that keeping of a spear without licence 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 licence to keep the same. So, unless it was/is proved that the accused/appellant had no licence 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.