SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR, J.--- Zulfiqar Ali alias Dittu, has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 8-6-1988 of the learned Judge Special Court for Speedy Trial No.IX, Gujranwala, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant under section 13 of Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 and gave him the sentence of five years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I., for a period of one year.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 1-11-1987 Fazal Ahmad Masood (P.W.3) Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Model Town, on receiving a secret information conducted a raid near Insaf Poultary Farm Dhulley, Gujranwala, and arrested Zulfiqar AN alias Dittu appellant alongwith his other co-accused. On the personal search of the appellant a Klashnikov P.1, two magazines P.2/1-2, 30 live cartridges P.3/1-30 and 7 empty cartridges P.4/1-7 were recovered. The appellant could not produce the licence for keeping the same. The Klashnikov was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.B. Fazal Ahmed Masood Inspector sent a written complaint Exh. P.A.
For the registration of the case at Police station, Model Town Gujranwala, and on this complaint formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 was registered at the police station by Muhammad Bashir A.S.I. (P.W.1).
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced three witnesses.
4. The appellant denied the, allegation made against him and pleaded innocence. He stated that the illicit arms had been planted upon him.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant forcefully urged that no public witness was associated white making recovery of the illicit Klashnikov at the instance of the appellant and as such the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have been violated.
6. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment under appeal.
7. We have examined the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that evidence of the police witnesses be discarded and the appellant be acquitted, because the police had no ostensible motive to falsely involve the appellant in this fake case and that the police people are as good witnesses as any other person, in the absence of any previous enmity. The Klashnikov recovered at the instance of the appellant is costly one and it could not be planted by the police in the normal course of the events, so easily on an accused person. We also do not find any substance in the legal objection that provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Were not complied with, as the recovery was effected from the personal search of the appellant and not from his house, which is the requirement of section 103, Cr.P.C. In addition to that, the Klashnikov was recovered from the appellant in a room near Insaf Poultary Farm, which is not an inhabitated area as is clear from the site plan, so no public witness was readily available; hence there is no force in this argument as well.
8. We have given our anxious consideration, whether the sentence needs re--consideration. We find that the sentence is proper and adequate and needs no re--consideration.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the appellant fails and is dismissed accordingly.