' This criminal revision arises out of the order of Khalid Mian, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore who vide his order dated 17-10-1991 while dismissing the appeal reduced the sentence of the petitioner from one year to 6 months' R.I. Under section 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance.
2. The record of the case has been perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The present case was registered against the petitioner on 2]-11-1989 at the instance of P.W.1 Miran Bakhsh, S.H.O., under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance. It was alleged by the prosecution that P.W.1 while on patrol duty on the night between 20th and 21st of November, 1989 witnessed the petitioner carrying .12 bore gun in his right hand. The petitioner was apprehended and four live cartridges were also recovered from the pocket of his shirt. The petitioner could not produce licence of the same. Hence this case.
3. The petitioner was challaned under section 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 and the charge was framed to which he denied and claimed trial. It is pertinent to mention here that even in the charge it was not mentioned that he had no licence for .12 bore gun and 4 live cartridges.
4. The prosecution had examined 4 P.Ws. In all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Miran Bakhsh, S.H.O. Is the complainant. P.W.2 Muhammad Riaz, S.I. On the receipt of complaint Exh.P.B. Recorded the F.I.R.
Exh.P.B./1. P.W.3 Shaukat Ali, Constable is the recovery witness. P.W.4 Abdur Rehman, Driver of the police is also attesting witness of recovery memo. Exh.PA.
5. The petitioner when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution evidence against him and also stated that he was working as a mason and had worked at the police station and was not paid for the same. On his demand he has been falsely implicated. Moreover the case property was taken into possession from one Muhammad Aslam. The petitioner produced 2 D.Ws.
In his defence. D.W.1 Faqir Muhammad had stated that he was sitting in the `Baithak' alongwith petitioner and Mukhtar when police party reached and asked the accused Muhammad Aslam to give them Bus, to which he refused that he had not been paid fare earlier. The police had taken into possession the licensed gun of accused Muhammad Aslam who also produced licence before the police but they were taken to the police station. Liaqat and Aslam were involved in the case. D.W.2 Mukhtar Ahmad stated that he alongwith one Aslam, Faqir Muhammad and others was present in the Baithak of said Muhammad Aslam when the police party reached and asked for the vehicle of Muhammad Aslam to which he refused that he had not been paid fare earlier by them. They took into possession the gun lying in the Baithak, although, the licence was produced by him. D.W.
Alongwith Aslam accused and the petitioner was taken to the police station where a case was planted. The petitioner and Muhammad Aslam were challaned.
6. It is contended that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court had misread the evidence. The case property had never been produced in the Court, at the time of examination of P.Ws. Muhammad Aslam who was also tried under section 16 of Arms Ordinance, 1965 was acquitted by the Appellate Court, as he was holding licence of .12 bore gun planted on the petitioner vide order of the appellate Court dated 17-10-1991.
7. It is also contended that no licence/permit was demanded from the petitioner but he had specifically stated that permit/licence of the gun was in the name of Muhammad Aslam.
8. The petitioner when charged, was not asked about the licence of case property. The case property was not produced in the Court. It is also on record that the case property of this case was licensed in the name of one Muhammad Aslam who was also tried under section 16 of Arms Ordinance, 1965. He was acquitted by the appellate Court as he was bona fide licensee of the case property of this case.
9. Pursuant to the above discussion I am of the view that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the petitioner. He is acquitted of the charge. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.