' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.--- Mohy-ud-Din son of Badshah Gul, was convicted and sentenced to suffer five years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For 1-1/2 years under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 by the learned Judge, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorists Activities), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, on 15-6-1991. He was not given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No,846 of 1991 before this Court which shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. Shortly stated, the facts are that on 28-4-1991, Ghulam Muhammad, A.S.I. (P.W.4), Jamshed Ali, A.S.I. (P.W.3) and Haji Muhammad Ali (P.W.2) were on patrol duty at Lal Mill Chowk, Factory Area, Faisalabad. An informant gave an intimation to the police party that the appellant was present and roaming about with a sten gun near the Oil Depot in Gunesh Mill Road, Faisalabad. On receipt of the information, the police party immediately came at the spot. On seeing them, the appellant made an attempt to slip. He was, however, apprehended by the police on the spot. On search, a sten gun (P.1) loaded with two magazines containing 10 bullets each (P.2/1-10 and P.3/1-10) were recovered and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.B. It was attested by Haji Muhammad Ali and Jamshed Ali P.Ws. The appellant was unable to produce any licence to keep the said weapon and ammunition with him.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution was able to produce Niaz Ahmad H.C. P.W.1, Haji Muhammad Ali P.W.2, Jamshed Ali P.W.3, Ghulam Muhammad A.S.I. P.W.4 and Rashid Ahmad P.W.S. The appellant did not plead guilty and denied the allegations levelled against him while making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant took the plea that he was falsely implicated in the case at the instance of Zulfiqar, Allah Ditta and Muhammad Ali because they did not return the price of the coal supplied to them by him. He further stated that the witnesses of the prosecution were the police officials and that the other witness was a stock-witness. The appellant also made a statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In support of his plea.
4. Learned counsel contends that there was absolutely no evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. The learned State counsel has opposed the appeal by adopting the reasons given by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have read the record with utmost care.
We are satisfied with the prosecution case inasmuch as it is successful in proving its case beyond doubt. It is proved that a sten gun and two magazines containing ten bullets each were recovered from the possession of the appellant in presence of competent witnesses. The witnesses were subjected to a lengthy cross-examination by the learned defence counsel. They, however, remained consistent to the prosecution version. There are no reasons to disbelieve the recovery of weapon and bullets from the appellant. He was caught red-handed by the raiding party. Thus, no case has been made out by the learned counsel for interference. However, we are inclined to observe that the sentence awarded to the appellant is harsh and excessive in the given facts and circumstances of the case. This being so, we reduce the sentence of the appellant from five years to three years. The sentence of fine is, however, upheld. He shall also be given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. With these modifications, there is no substance in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.
Sentence reduced.