' MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, J.---Vide impugned judgment dated 9-7-1991 Mr. Fakhar-ud-Din Siddiqui, Judge, Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Bahawalpur Division convicted and sentenced Muhammad Ali, appellant as follows:--
(i) under section 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance to seven years' RI. And fine of Rs, One lac, in default whereof two years' R.I.;
(ii) under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs, five lac, in default of payment of fine, five years' R.I.
' The convict has filed the instant appeal.
2. The accused was in police custody in case F.I.R. No, 377/90 dated 30-12-1990 under section 379, P.P.C., registered at Police Station City Division, Rahimyar Khan who was interrogated by P.W.5, Shahbaz Hussain Shah, complainant S.H.O. City C-Division, Rahimyar' Khan on 1-2-1991, he made a disclosure in presence of Muhammad Younis P.W.3, S.I. Sher Afghan Haider, Masood Ahmad, Maqbool Ahmad, Rashim Khan Constables and P.W.4, Allah Ditta and led the police party to his house. The accused after entering the room of his house from a wooden Paiti took out six hand- grenades Exh.P.1/1-6 which were secured by P.W.5 vide memo. Exh.PG attested by P.W.3, Muhammad Younis S.I. And P.W.4, Allah Ditta. The accused could not produce any licence or permit of the crime property. P.W.5 drafted complaint Exh.PA at the spot on 1-2-1991 at 12-00 noon time and sent the same to the police station through Masood Ahmad, Constable where P.W.1 received the same and on its basis recorded F.I.R. Exh.PA/1. P.W.5, S.H.O. Police Station after completion of investigation had challaned the appellant.
3. A charge under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance, section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and section 120-B of Pakistan Penal Code was framed against the appellant to which he denied and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution had examined five P.Ws. In all to substantiate its case.
P.W.1 Ghulam Sarwar had recorded F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 on the basis of complaint Exh.PA. P.W.2, a bomb disposal commander had examined hand-grenades P.1/1-6 and submitted his report Exh.PC to the effect that hand-grenades were in working condition. P.W.3, Muhammad Younis had joined the police party and the accused had made a disclosure in his presence, led to the recovery of hand- grenades Exh.P.1/1-6 from his house, produced before P.W.5 who secured the same vide memo.
Exh.PC attested by him and P.W.4, Allah Ditta. Allah Ditta P.W.4 had joined the recovery proceedings and in his presence, the accused had offered and led to the recovery of hand-grenades P.1/1-6 which were secured by P.W.5 vide memo. Exh.PC and attested by him and P.W.4.
' P.W.5 Shahbaz Hussain, S.H.O. Is the complainant and investigating officer in whose presence, the accused while on physical remand had made a disclosure in presence of P.Ws. And led to the recovery of six hand-grenades P.1/1-6 which were secured by him vide Exh.PC. P.W.5 drafted complaint Exh.PA on the basis of which Exh.PA/1 was recorded.
5. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution evidence against him and had stated that the P.Ws. Had deposed against him at the asking of the police, the case had been falsely registered against him by the police in order to prevent one of his relations to pursue the writ petition filed against the police officials. He also made statement on oath as D.W.
3 and produced D.W.1, Ghulam Yasin and D.W.2, Muhammad lshaq who had stated about the good character of the appellant and fabrication of the case against him by the police.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. P.W.3, Muhammad Younis, a police official during cross-examination had stated that he did not go in the house of the appellant and he did not know whether anybody else and police visited the house of the accused prior to 1-2-1991 and the accused is resident of a thickly populated area. He had seen six hand- grenades and had signed the recovery memo. P.W.4 stated during cross-examination that he was resident of Dera of Anwar/Munawar Jat and it was correct that Anwar got registered a murder case against the accused. Thanedar had entered in the house of the accused in his presence and he had not gone inside but his signature was obtained at the spot. The distance between the police station and the place of recovery was thirty minutes drive and he did not know the actual distance between the police station and the accused's house. He sat on the earth. The police officers/officials were standing and few of them were sitting on the earth. He remained there for about fifteen minutes. Then he went to his house. He signed over the written paper which was not read over to him. He signed the paper alone and none else has signed in his presence. He refuted the suggestion that the recovery was not effected from the accused. The house of the accused was situated in a big mohallah at Mustan Shah.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that P.Ws.3 and 4 have not witnessed the recovery of hand- grenades P.1/1-6 at the instance of the accused. The place of recovery is situated in a populated area and none of the residents of the locality was associated in the recovery proceedings which is violative of section 103, Cr.P.C.
' P.W.4, Allah Ditta the only public witness associated in the recovery proceedings is not resident of the locality from where the recovery of crime property was made. He deposed that he lived at the Dera of Anwar/Munawar Jat and Anwar Jat had got registered a case for the murder of his son against the accused. The statements made by P.Ws.3 and 4 are not confidence 8 inspiring and we are left with the statement of P.W.5, Shahbaz Hussain, S.H.O. Investigating Officer who is also complainant in the present case. He was interested in the conviction of the appellant. No doubt, the police official is as good prosecution witness as any other public witness but in the peculiar circumstances of the case, his statement requires independent corroboration which we are afraid is not forthcoming in the present case.
8. Pursuant to the above discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond doubt against the appellant who is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
9. Before parting with this judgment, we must express dismay and displeasure over the manner in which the evidence was recorded by the learned Special Judge. The entire evidence bristles with grammatical and spelling mistakes. The learned Special Judge did not appear to have cast even casual look on what he has dictated. P.W.3, Muhammad Younis S.I. During cross-examination had not supported the prosecution version and we would like that a copy of this judgment be sent to D.I.G., Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur to take immediate action against him as provided under the Police Rules and law.