1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.--- Appellant Muhammad Yar son of Mutalli Khan, caste Janjua was tried by a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act on the charge under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for keeping in possession 8 hand-grenades illegally.
2. ' Vide judgment dated 20th of November, 1991, the appellant was found guilty on the aforesaid charge and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 14 years. The learned trial Judge also ordered the forfeiture of movable and as well as immovable property belonging to the appellant. However, he was given benefit under section 382- B, Cr.P.C.
3. ' Aggrieved by his conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal which shall be disposed of through this judgment.
4. ' The prosecution case in brief is that on 24th of August, 1991, police party headed by S.I. Waqar Ahmad, Police Station Katha Sagral and consisted of two A.S.Is., two Head Constables and 14 Constables, left the police station in a police vehicle and on a secret information received by them, visited the Dera Mutali Wala, Dakhli Jaswal, Police Station Katha Saghral. At the said Dera, the appellant was present and he was interrogated about the illicit arms and ammunition. During the interrogation, the appellant led the raiding party to the room of his Dera where from underneath the beddings, he brought out an iron box and in addition to the other arms and ammunition got recovered 8 hand-grenades P.2/1-8. The hand-grenades and iron box P.1 were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by A.S.I. Nazar Muhammad, P.W.2, S.I. Waqar Ahmad, P.W.3 S.H.O. Police Station Katha Saghral and A.S.I. Zafar Iqbal (not produced). The appellant could not produce any licence for keeping these hand-grenades in his possession, thus, S.I. Waqar Ahmad drew a complaint Exh.P.A. At about 6-30 a.m. And sent the same to the police station for registration of formal F.I.R. At the police station formal F.1.R. Exh.P.A./1 was drafted by Amir Afzal P.W.1 at 7-45 a.m.
5. ' To substantiate its case at the trial, the prosecution placed reliance upon the testimony of Nazar Muhammad, A.S.I., P.W.2, S.1. Waqar Ahmad, P.W.3 while P.W.1 Amir Afzal, A.S.I. Entered the witness- box to state about the drawing of the formal F.I.R. The prosecution also produced Ghulam Muhammad, P.W.4, Bomb Disposal Commander Civil Defence Office, Sargodha to depose that the hand-grenades were in working order.
6. ' When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the charge and state that he has been falsely involved in this case on account of enmity with the Federal Minister Malik Muhammad Naeem and with the police. No evidence was led in defence.
7. ' With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, we have carefully perused the entire evidence on the record.
8. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case is false inasmuch as despite the admission of the S.I. Waqar Ahmad that there were about 10 to 12 houses near the Dera of the appellant but no person from those houses was cited as a witness. The contention has no force, inasmuch as we have gone through the statement of the Police Officer, A.S.I. Nazar Muhammad, P.W.2, who deposed that though number of persons gathered at the spot at the time of recovery but none of them was willing to become a witness. It was further contended that none from the nearby village Mangwal was made to join the investigation. Again we regret to observe that this contention too is devoid of force because the Police Officer was not bound to make persons from the other village to join the recovery.
9. ' The crucial question falling for determination in this case is the intrinsic value of the statements of the witnesses on the record. After having perused the statements of the recovery witnesses, we are satisfied that the recovery in this case is genuine and these 8 hand-grenades alongwith other arms and ammunition could not have been planted upon the appellant and there is no iota of any political rivalry or any enmity with the police so as to give rise to any inference that the case is false.
10. ' Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the sentence awarded in this case is too severe. The appellant had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 14 years under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act in addition to the forfeiture of movable and immovable property belonging to the appellant. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel and thus we take the lenient view and accordingly, we reduce the sentence from 14 years' R.I. To 7 years' R.I. We set aside the order as to the forfeiture of movable and immovable property of the appellant. The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
11. ' With these modifications, this petition stands dismissed.
12. Sentence reduced.