' The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the petitioner was tried by a Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 with the allegation that he was in possession of a .30 bore pistol for which he had no licence. The learned Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 22-8-1990 convicted and sentenced him to one year's R.I. The petitioner assailed the said judgment. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment dated 8-7-1991 dismissed the appeal and maintained the sentence and conviction awarded by the Magistrate. In the present revision, the petitioner assails both the judgments.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was apprehended by Naveed Saeed, S.I., and pistol was recovered from him. Argued that the petitioner had enmity with the said S.I. And the present case was the result of said enmity. Argued that the petitioner had appeared on oath in his defence as well as produced two defence witnesses but none of them was cross-examined, and, in such circumstances, the defence of the petitioner goes unrebutted and can safely be relied upon. The contentions were opposed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. Prosecution in support of its case had produced two witnesses Naweed Saeed, S.I., who had arrested the petitioner, and Mansoor Ahmad, H.C., who had witnessed the recovery of pistol. Statements of both the witnesses were challenged at length. Thereafter, the appellant in his statement under section 342 as well as under section 340, Cr.P.C. Asserted that the complainant used to run a video shop situated in front of the house of the petitioner, where they used to play songs at a very high volume. The petitioner many a time asked the complainant and his men not to play songs at such tone. For that reason there had been an altercation between them as well. He also produced a witness who corroborated the version of the petitioner. I have noticed both the witnesses were not cross-examined at all. This would mean that the prosecution accepted their statements, that is why the same were not challenged by way of cross-examination. In these circumstances, if the prosecution case is placed in juxtaposition with the defence version, the defence version becomes more plausible. It is well- settled law that if a witness is not put to the test of cross-examination, it would mean that the other side accepts his testimony.
' In these circumstances, the revision is accepted and the judgments of both the Courts below are set aside. The petitioner, who is already on bail, is acquitted. His bail bond shall stand discharged.