RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JTahir alias Tahira son of Muhammad Yousaf was tried by Kh. Mahmood Ahmad, learned Judge Special Court (Suppression of Terrorists Activities), Gujranwala, under section 13 of the. Arms Ordinance, XX of 1965. He was convicted and sentenced to 6 years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. For one year. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also given to the convict. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this appeal before this Court.
2. The allegations were that the appellant was arrested from the Dera of Ilyas alias Baggu situate at Mohallah Shah Khaki Gali, Rangpura. In consequence: Klashnikov P.1 alongwith four live cartridges P.2/1-4 were recovered from his possession. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.C. The recovery was attested by Ghulam Abbas Khan Inspector/S.H.O. P.W.2 and Muhammad Ashraf A.S.I. P.W.3. The appellant was unable to produce any licence to keep the aforesaid weapon with him.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced Muhammad Iqbal H.C. P.W.1, Ghulam Abbas Khan Inspector/S.H.O. P.W.2 and Muhammad Ashraf A.S.I. P.W.3. The appellant denied the allegation levelled against him by making a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He also made a statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel does not challenge the conviction recorded against the appellant. He states that the appellant has already completed about one year and nine months imprisonment in jail.
He submits that the sentence already suffered by the appellant is adequate to meet the ends of justice. The learned State counsel does .Not at all oppose the request so made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have read the record with care. We are convinced that the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial Court. The evidence deposed by P.W.1 to P.W.3 was enough to convict the appellant in the case. The evidence inspires confidence. Even otherwise, the conviction of the appellant was not challenged by the learned counsel. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. However, in view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him. The appellant shall be released forthwith provided of course he is not needed in some other case. With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in the appeal which is dismissed.
S.A./T-10/L