' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--- This Criminal Appeal No,205 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, whereby he on 28-2-1990 convicted Liaqat Ali alias Liaqu under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to five years' R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed Klashnikov P.1, fitted with magazine P.2 containing 25 bullets P.3/1-25 on 1-6-1988. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Muhammad Arshad F.C. (P.W.1) prepared the formal F.I.R. Muhammad Saleem Inspector (P.W.2) and Qadir Hussain S.I. (P.W.3) are the witnesses of recovery. Qadir Hussain P.W.3 stated that on 1-6-1988, Liaqat Ali appellant, while in custody in a connected case F.I.R. No,204/87 led to the Dera of Muhammad Nawaz situate in Village Nath and got recovered unlicensed Klashnikov P.1 fitted with magazine P.2 containing 25 bullets P.3/1-25. Muhammad Saleem P.W.2 supported the statement made by Qadir Hussain P.W.3.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the recovery of Klashnikov and bullets from him. He raised the plea of false implication by the police under the pressure of his enemies. He did not produce evidence in defence.
5. Believing the prosecution case 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 mainly contended that the Klashnikov and bullets were not recovered from the exclusive possession of the appellant and as such, he could not have been convicted. The leraned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
7. We have carefully attended to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, and have reviewed the prosecution evidence and the statement made by the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. We feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We find that the Klashnikov and the bullets were not recovered from the person of the appellant or from his house or from any other place in his exclusive possession. It was rather recovered from the Dera of Muhammad Nawaz. Strangely enough, Muhammad Nawaz has not been produced as a witness.
Furthermore, although the proceedings relating to the recovery of firearms at the instance of the appellant were pre-arranged, yet no person from the locality was associated to witness the recovery and only the police officials were made the attesting witnesses of the recovery memo. For these reasons, we feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.