' SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR, J.---Khadim Hussain appellant in this case was tried under section 13 of Arms Ordinance by the Judge, Special Court No. IV, Constituted under Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. Vide judgment dated 12-6-1990, the learned Court found him guilty and accordingly sentenced, him to six years' R.I. plus fine of Rs.20,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. for a period of two years. The convict has appealed.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30-4-1990 at about evening time, Muhammad Yousuf S.I.
(P.W.3) along with the police personnel were present on the branch road, in the area of Pandori near Sohl in connection with patrol duty. They saw the appellant riding on a mare with Klashnikov handing on his shoulder. The police party encircled the appellant and apprehended him.
Klashnikov P.1, Magzine P.2 and 1.5 live bullets were recovered from the appellant. Since the appellant had no licence for keeping the arm with him, therefore, Muhammad Yousuf S.I. drafted a complaint Exh. PA. and sent the same to Police Station Narang, where formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 was recorded by Muhammad Akram M.H.C. (P.W.1).
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of Nawaz Masih (P.W.2), Driver of the Wagon and Muhammad Yousuf S.I. (P.W.3). Nawaz Masih P.W.2 is the owner of the Pick-up, which was hired by the police for patrol. He fully supported the prosecution case in all material respects. Similarly, Muhammad Yousuf S.I. also supported the prosecution version, although both these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination.
4. The appellant did not deny the recovery of the illicit arms but asserted that it belonged to one Karamat, his mother's sister's husband and that he was going to return the same to him.
5. The trial Court after analysing the prosecution and the defence evidence convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the defence taken by the appellant before the trial Court and vehemently argued that since the recovery had been admitted, therefore, the appellant should be exonerated, because the Klashnikov belonged to another person We are afraid, the A contention has no force, because the offence is against the possession and not the onwership of arms. Since the appellant has admitted the recovery of the illicit arms, therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution has brought home the guilt to the appellant. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in this appeal.
7. However, the question of sentence requires consideration. The appellant has been sentenced to six years' R.I. plus fine of Rs. 20,000 as indicated above. We feel that the sentence is excessive.
Accordingly we reduced the sentence from six years' R.I. to three years' R.I. and also the fine from Rs.
20,000 to Rs. 10,000 or in default the appellant shall undergo six months' R.I. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of.
Sentence reduced.