' This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment, dated 18-4-1988 made by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner awarded by the learned trial Court on 25-10-1987 under section 13(20)65 of Arms Ordinance to undergo one year's R.I., was maintained.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was arrested in another case when a 12 bore pistol alongwith two live cartridges were recovered from his personal search which were secured by P.W.3 vide Exh.PA. And Exh.P.B. Attested by P.W.1 and P.W.2. The petitioner could not produce any licence. P.W.3 drafted the complaint Exh.P.B. And sent to the police station for registration of a case where F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was recorded by Muhammad Irshad, Head Constable/Naib-Moharrar. The petitioner was challaned and sent up for trial. A charge under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance was framed to which he denied and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution had examined 3 P.Ws. In all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Yasin son of Abdul Hakeem had witnessed recovery of pistol P.1 and P.2 live cartridges from the possession of the petitioner on his personal search which was secured by P.W.3 vide memo. Exh.PA. Attested by him.
P.W.2 Muhammad Yasin son of Shams-ud-Din had also corroboated the statement of P.W.1. P.W.3 Muhammad Amin, A.S.I. The Investigating Officer had arrested the petitioner and on his personal search secured the pistol P.1 and 2 live cartridges P.2 vide recovery memos. Exh.PA. And Exh.P.B. As the petitioner could not produce any licence. P.W.3 drafted the complaint Exh.PA. And sent the same to the police station where Muhammad Irshad Naib-Moharrir on its basis recorded the F.I.R.
Exh.P.B./1 and P.W.3 had identified the handwriting and signatures of Muhammad Irshad Naib- Moharrar.
4. The petitioner when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution evidence against him and had stated that he had been falsely involved and produced D.W.1 Muhammad Sharif and D.W.2 Noor Hayat, who have stated about the innocence of the petitioner. The petitioner had not made statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and have perused the record. The petitioner was required in case F.I.R. No,81/87 registered against him at Police Station Mandi Sadiq Ganj, and was arrested by P.W.3, in presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 had made personal search of the petitioner and secured pistol P.1 and 2 live cartridges P.2 vide memo. Exh.PA. And Exh.P.B. As the petitioner could not produce any licence of the same. P.Ws.1 and 2 are public witnesses and nothing has been brought on record by the defence that they were the police Mashirs or inimical towards the petitioner. They had no motive, whatsoever, to make false statement against the petitioner.
6. I am of the considered view that no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment but learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed leniency in the matter of sentence. The case F.I.R.
No,81/87 in which the petitioner was arrested has already been compounded between the parties and in that case the petitioner has been acquitted on account of compromise. The petitioner remained in jail as undertrial and convict for about 2-1/4 months and I am of the view that the period already undergone by the petitioner as undertrial and convict shall meet the ends of justice, as the petitioner has faced agony of the trial since 198. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
Sentence reduced.