MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--- This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, whereby he on 10-6-1990 convicted Muhammad Saleem appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to seven years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof one year's R.I.
2. The charge against him was of keeping unlicensed Klashnikov P.1 and twenty-two live bullets P.2/1-22 on the night between 3/4-3-1990, which were recovered from him while he was sitting in a house, by Habib Ahmad Sub---Inspector (P.W.3). He denied the charge and claimed to be-tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Rohel Sabir S.I. (P.W.1) drafted the formal F.I.R. Saleem Ahmad Sub-Inspector (P.W.2) and Habib Ahmad S.I. (P.W.3) are the witnesses of recovery of Klashnikov P.1 and bullets P.2/1-22. They have supported the prosecution case. Habib Ahmad Sub-Inspector (P.W.3) stated that on receiving secret information that four persons had collected in, the house of the appellant in order to commit dacoity, he registered a case F.I.R. No.56 on 4-3-1990. After the registration of the case, he conducted raid on the house of the appellant at 11-30 p.m. On the same day. He found the appellant sitting on a chair carrying loaded Klashnikov P.1 in his hands. There were twelve live cartridges P.2/1-12 in the Klashnikov. A bag containing 10 live cartridges P.4/1-10 was lying underneath the chair of the appellant. The Klashnikov and the live bullets/cartridges were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by Saleem Ahmad S.I.
(P.W.2) and Muhammad Majeed Khan Sub-Inspector (not produced). The appellant did not possess any licence to keep these fire-arms. Saleem Ahmad A.S.I. (P.W.2) supported the statement of Habib Ahmad S.I. (P.W.3).
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. He stated that:-- "There is a person namely Riasat Ali who lives in our colony and has good terms with D.I.-G.
Mukhtar-ul-Mulk, the present D.I.-G. Gujranwala Range. I was beaten by the aforesaid Riasat Ali and Noori Sain and 4/5 other persons in the Chowk of Peoples Colony. On 28-2--1990, I obtained the medical result alongwith M.L.R. And presented an application to Habib Ahmad Chadher, S.H.O., Police Station Peoples Colony, Gujranwala. The said S.H.O. Refused to register a case on the basis of my application rather asked me to come over to the office of the D.S.P. I went to the office of D.S.P.
But nothing happened. I came back to my residence where in the evening aforesaid Riasat Ali also came and fired at one Maqsood, whose legs were injured by the bullets. Maqsood after being injured rushed inside my house and informed me that Riasat has fired at me. I closed the doors of my house at one. Riasat Ali hurled abuses while standing outside my house and went away thereafter. I took Maqsood to the hospital, got his medical report and presented it to the Thanedar who said that he has been directed by his superiors not to register the case. In the evening, I went to the office of the D.S.P. Who arrested me and a case under section 336, P.P.C. Police Station Satellite Town was registered against me and I was arrested. After a few days i.e. On 3-3-1990, I got himself bailed out. I again met the D.S.P. And asked him to register the case on 4-3-1990. Instead of registering the case, I was arrested and the police tried to plant upon me a case in respect of a dacoity and since nothing was recovered from me thus I was discharged by the Court. Thereafter, I came to know that a case under, section 13/20/65 A.O. Has been registered against me."
He gave evidence on oath in disproof of the charge against him. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
5. Believing the prosecution evidence and disbelieving the plea of false implication raised by the appellant, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him, as stated above.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no person from the public was associated to witness the recovery of the fire-arm from the appellant; that no implicit reliance can be placed on the statements of the two police officials, namely, Saleem Ahmad P.W.2 and Habib Ahmad P.W.3, that while effecting the recovery, the requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. Were not complied with inasmuch as two persons from the locality were not made the witnesses of the alleged recovery. No one has appeared for the State.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have reviewed the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, statements of the appellant made under sections 340(2) and 342, Cr.P.C. And the plea of false implication raised by him. We do not feel persuaded to agree with him. We find that after the registration of a case under section 402, P.P.C., the police party raided the house of the appellant in order to arrest him. They were not required to take with them persons from the locality in order to effect the arrest of the appellant.
The police did not intend to search the house, when Habib Ahmad and Bashir Ahmad entered the house of the appellant; they found him sitting on a chair holding Klashnikov in his hands. In these circumstances, we are convinced that the S.I./S.H.O. Was not obliged to associate two respectable persons from the locality to witness the A recovery of the fire-arms from him. Saleem Ahmad S.I.
(P.W.2) and Habib Ahmad S.I. (P.W.3) have successfully faced the test of cross-examination. We do not see any legal infirmity warranting the rejection of their statements, which cannot and should not be rejected or discarded for the reason of the office they hold. For all these reasons we are convinced that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court.
This brings us to the question of sentence. The appellant is not a previous convict. We feel that the sentence of seven years' R.I. Is a bit harsh. So the same is reduced to five years' R.I. The fine of Rs.10,000 is also reducedto Rs.5,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.