' MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J.--- Muhammad Abid (19) was tried by Judge, Special Court No,IV, constituted under the Suppression of Terroiist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, for an offence under section 13 of ihe Arms Ordinance and sentenced to six years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,20,000 or in default thereof 1-1/2 years' R.I. He has appealed.
2. Muhammad Sadiq, A.S.I. (P.W.3) was present in the area of village Nurpur Dogran in connection with investigation of case F.I.R. No,483/89, dated 29-11-1989 under section 13 of Arms Ordinance, Police Station Sadar Kasur, Abid appellant while in custody made a disclosure that he could lead to the recovery of arms and ammunition which he buried in the area of village Dingriwala. He led to the place of recovery in the said village and after digging some earth got recovered bag (P.1) containing 9 missils (P.2/1-9), bag (P.3) containing 36 time bombs (P.4/1-36), another bag (P.5) having 70 watches (P.7/1-70) with one pencil cell and two wires each, 4 packets containing explosive (P.7/1-4) and one pistol .32 bore (P.8) which were taken into possession vide memo.
(Exh.P.B.). The A.S.I. Prepared written complaint (Exh.PA.) and sent it to the Police Station Raiwind where formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA./1) was registered by Riaz Ahmad, Moharrir Head Constable (P.W.1) the same day (29-11-1989) at 11-00 a.m.
3. The appellant when charged did not plead guilty and at the close of the trial in his statement when asked, "why this case against you", pleaded: "I have been implicated at the instance of Faqirullah and Muhammad Tufail who have intimate connections with the police. I have been made just a scapegoat."
' He also asserted that Kamal Din (P.W2) was a stock-witness of the police.
4. The recovery of the weapons and ammunition is stated to by Kamal Din and Muhammad Sadiq, A.S.L (P.Ws2 and 3). Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Kamal Din (P.W2) was not present, has been cooked up, not a single witness from the village Dingriwala has been associated, the investigators had difference of opinion that the weapons/ammunition belonged to Muhammad Tufail and an uncle of the appellant. On the other hand learned counsel for the State supported the judgment delivered by the learned trial Court. Muhammad Sadiq A.S.L (P.W3) deposed that after making a disclosure the appellant led to village Dingriwala and got recovered weapon and the ammunition. In cross-examination he told that the appellant made the disclosure at about 4-00 a.m. And had been apprehended about 5/10 minutes before that. He was carrying a gun at the time of apprehension which was also recovered. Kamal Din had come to him at about 8/9 p.m. On 28-11-1989 at C.IA. Staff, Kasur and the place of recovery in the present case was about 15/20 miles therefrom. He also told that the village is at a distance of 8/10 acres from the place of recovery but no one therefrom witnessed the recovery. He also stated that the appellant belonged to village Sharewala which was at a distance of about 25/30 miles from the place of recovery. The place of occurrence was at a distance of 30 miles from the Indo-Pak Border. He also stated that the appellant made a disclosure to him that he was working with one Tufail who was the owner of these incriminating materials. Faqirullah the uncle of the appellant was also made to join the investigation but it was not established that he (Faqirullah) was working with Tufail. He also showed ignorance that the appellant had fired upon his uncle Faqirullah. He denied that said Tufail and Faqirullah used to deal in illicit arms and ammunition etc. Belonged to them. He was corroborated by Kamal-ud-Din (P.W.2). In cross-examination he told that he had gone to C.IA. Staff as his oxen had been stolen from his own village about 12 miles from Dingriwala. He denied that he was a witness against one Mukhtar in another case. He asserted that it was the first time that he was appearing as a witness. He denied that no recovery was effected from the appellant.
5. Both the witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination. Kamalud-Din (P.W.2) is a public witness and there is nothing not to believe him His village was 10 miles away from the place of recovery but he had come to C.IA. Staff in connection with the theft of his oxen. It could not be said that such a large quantity of ammunition etc. Would have been planted upon the appellant. There is nothing on the record to show that Tufail or Faqirullah the real uncle of the appellant were engaged in the business of illicit arms or these belonged to them and were falsely planted upon the appellant. The recovery at the instance of the appellant is more than proved.
6. The upshot is that the appeal against conviction fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail, he be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. The District Magistrate, Kasur would effect the arrest of the appellant and lodge him in jail to serve out the sentence.