SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the Judgment of High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta, dated 3-6-1990 whereby on appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 13-E of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 19(i5, was maintained.
2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 25-6-1989 at about 6-35 a.m., Muhammad Siddique Sub-Inspector (PW-4) alongwith a Police Party while on Nakabandi intercepted the petitioner and on his personal search recovered 1100 live bullets of kalashnikov rifle.
There were other companions of the petitioner from whom similar recoveries were made. Three Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Muhammad Siddique, S.I. Appeared as prosecution witnesses in the trial Court to establish the case against the petitioner. Plea of the accused at the trial was that he was not apprehended in the manner alleged by the prosecution witnesses but was at the relevant time travelling from Quetta to Zhob on a Bus alongwith others. There was dispute between the Bus driver and the Police on which he alongwith other passengers was taken to the Police Station and involved in the case. He also produced two witnesses in defence in support of his version.
2. The trial Court found the prosecution case creditworthy and the defence version not made out, and held the petitioner guilty under section 13-E of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, convicted him and sentenced him to three years' R.I. Giving him the benefit of section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. "An appeal was taken to the High Court. The entire evidence was reappraised as also the arguments advanced before the Court but the conviction and the sentence were maintained and the appeal was dismissed.
4. Mr. Khalid Malik, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that there was no expert evidence produced to establish that what was allegedly recovered from the petitioner was in fact live bullets of a prohibited arm, namely kalashnikov. Besides, according to him, compliance with section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not taken place inasmuch as no witness of the locality was associated with the recovery. The entire prosecution case was based on the evidence of the Police Officers who, in the circumstances of the case, were interested witnesses. Independent corroboration required and expected in such cases, was not forthcoming.
The learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioner was materially prejudiced in his defence as he was a Pashto speaking illiterate individual who could not fully understand either Urdu or Balochi.
He was not, therefore, in a position to put across his version- to the Officers trying him or examining the merits of the case. Finally, the learned counsel contended that as the petitioner was first offender, has already been admitted to bail by this Court pending this petition and the offence involves no moral turpitude, a lenient view could be taken and he could be released on parole/probation, in order to satisfy the ends of justice.
5. From the very outset the evidence was forthcoming on the record that the live bullets recovered were of a prohibited weapon like kalashnikov. 1t is no longer a novelty in the area to which the case belongs. At no stage was the slightest doubt expressed about its characteristics, identity or particulars. No expert evidence was required to establish its prohibited character. The recovered article itself proved its identity and was capable of proving it.
6. There were two versions with regard to the recoveries. The one' forwarded by the four Police Officers and the other by the petitioner. The two Courts have examined the evidence brought on record and preferred the prosecution evidence over the version of the petitioner. No illegality or infirmity has been found in drawing such conclusions as were drawn. It is not an absolute requirement that in every case witnesses of the public must necessarily be produced. It depends upon the facts of each case. In the case in hand the Police Officers were in the ordinary course of duty looking for the suspects and errant. They happened to come across the petitioner in the circumstances which aroused their suspicion leading to the arrest and recovery. In such a situation one cannot insist that the members of the public must necessarily appear as to witness the recovery. If their testimony is intrinsically sound, without there being anything in the circumstances to arouse doubt, then such testimony is sufficient for the purpose of establishing the facts.
7. As regards the inability of the petitioner to understand the language of the Court, we find that the Reader of the Court, who was conversant with the two languages, was appointed as an interpreter and had performed the duties of explaining and interpreting the version of the petitioner. The High Court has also examined this contention and it found that the interest of the petitioner was fully safeguarded in the proceedings and no prejudice at all was caused by the appointment of the Court Reader as an interpreter.
8. We do not consider the offence of which the petitioner is found guilty to be such where admitting him to probation/ parole at this stage would be in public interest. In the circumstances no merit is found in the petition and leave to appeal is refused. The petitioner shall be required to undergo the unexpired sentence.