Rustam petitioner stands convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to one year's R.1. On the charge of keeping unlicensed gun on 10-9-1983, which was recovered from him by Muhammad Akbar, H.C. P:WA in the presence of Haqnawaz and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws.
He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. Prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Haqnawaz P.W.1, Ghulam Muhammad P.W.2 and Muhammad Akbar P.W.4 have supported the recovery of unlicensed gun from the petitioner. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances. He did not produce any witness in defence.
3. No one has appeared for the petitioner. I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I feel persuaded to accept this revision on the ground that no person from the public was associated to witness the recovery of fire-arm from the petitioner.
Furthermore, there are discrepancies in the statements of Haqnawaz P.W.1 and Ghulam Muhammad P.W.2. Ghulam Muhammad being a Razakar was a part of the police and was not an independent witness.
For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.