MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--- This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Lahore, whereby he on 13-6-1990 convicted Naseer Ahmad alias Naseera appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to five years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed Mauzer P.1 in his possession on 17- 6-1989. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Mian Khan. A.S.I. (P.W.1) drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh. P.B. Muhammad Qasim Wasti, Magistrate 1st Class (P.W.2) and Khalid Masood Inspector (P.W.3) are the recovery witnesses. Muhammad Qasim Wasti M.I.C. (P.W.2) stated that on 17-6-1989, they had raised room No.3 of Yaqoob Hostel of Government College of Technology, Railway Road, Lahore, and recovered Mauzer P.1 fitted with magazine P.2 from the cot lying in the room occupied by the appellant. Khalid Masood Inspector (P.W.3) supported him.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of Mauzer from him. He did not produce any evidence in defence. He gave evidence on oath in disproof of the charge against him.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the possibility of putting Mauzer in the room of the Hostel by students of rival group is not excluded. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant with care.
We feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We find that at the time of recovery of Mauzer from the room of Yaqoob Hostel, the appellant was not present there. The recovery was not effected on his pointation. It is a matter of common knowledge that there are rival groups of students in the Hostel. In these circumstances, the possibility that the Mauzer might have been placed by some one else in the room of the appellant, cannot be excluded. Be that as it may, the exclusive possession of Mauzer by the appellant is not established. For these reasons, we are convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge: He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bond.