' Shaukat Ali petitioner was tried under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 on the charge of the keeping unlicensed knife/dagger Ex.P1. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case, prosecution produced 3 witnesses. Manzoor Hussain P.W.1, Muhammad Baqir Shah A.S.I., P.W.2 are the witnesses of the recovery. They stated that knife Ex.P1 was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he was not holding any licence for keeping the same.
Muhammad Yasin P.W.3 recorded the formal F.I.R. PC on the report of Muhammad Baqir Shah A.S.I.
When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced Allah Wasaya D.W.1 who stated that the police had arrested the petitioner from a hotel, and he was falsely involved in the case. Ghulam Muhammad P.W.2 stated that the police had concocted a false case against the petitioner. Shaukat Ali petitioner/accused appeared as D.W.3 to give evidence on Oath in disproof of the charge against him. He denied the recovery of knife from his possession. On the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him to one year R.I. On 5-8-1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan on 15-8-1990, hence this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no legal evidence to show that the blade of the knife recovered from the accused/petitioner was of 4" or more. Conversely, the learned Counsel for the State submitted that the F.I.R. And the recovery memo shows that the blade of the knife was 11-1/2".
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with A care. I feel persuaded to agree with him. There can be no two opinions that the I onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the knife recovered from the accused was with a blade of more than 4" long. None of the recovery witnesses have deposed about the length of the knife Ex.P1 recovered from the accused/petitioner.
No doubt, it has been stated in the and in the recovery memo that the knife was with a blade of 11- 1/2" but the F.I.R. And the recovery memo being not substantive piece of evidence, cannot be used as legal evidence of the length of the blade of the knife. The F.I.R. And memoranda including recovery memo can only be used to corroborate facts stated in the evidence and not otherwise.
' Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted, the conviction and sentence is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail and stands discharged of the bail bonds.