' A case was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of P.W.3 Munir Ahmad, S.I./S.H.O.
Police Station Massan, Jhang City, who had alleged that on 12-2-1991 at about 6-45 p.m. He was on emergency patrol duty alongwith P.W.1 Muhammad Yar, Head Constable and P.W.2 Muhammad Shafi, A.S.I. In the area of Police Station City Jhang near Octroi Post No,22 when the accused whose name and address was known later on, after coming out from Mohallah Gulabwala was proceeding towards the graveyard, was suspected, stopped and searched, and from the Naifa of his Shalwar a carbine .12 bore (country-made) and from the right side pocket of his shirt four live cartridges were recovered. He could not produce any licence or permit. P.W.3 drafted a complaint Exh.P.B. And sent the same to the police station through Muhammad Ramzan, Constable, where it was received by Muhammad Khan, Moharrir Head Constable, who on the basis of the same, registered F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 on the same day at 7-00 p.m.
2. The learned trial Court recorded the statements of three prosecution witnesses and sentenced the petitioner to 6 months' R.I. Vide his judgment, dated 19-7-1992. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, who vide his judgment dated 8-8-1992 dismissed the same. He approached this Court through criminal revision which was admitted for hearing.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case property i,e. Carbine .12 bore (country-made) and four live cartridges were not exhibited in the Court at the time of examination of P.W.1 Muhammad Yar, Head Constable and P,W.2 Muhammad Shafi, A.S.I. The petitioner had moved an application before the trial Court on the day when P.W.1 was examined that his counsel was away to Faisalabad and cross-examination of P.W.1 be , reserved, but the same was disallowed. It is a right of an accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses which was denied to him by the trial Court. The case property was not present in the Court at the time of examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2. It is also urged that P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are police officials A had made contrary statements, i,e. P.W.2 has stated during cross-examination that at the time of the alleged recovery from the petitioner, curfew was imposed in Jhang, whereas P.W.3 has stated that no curfew was imposed in the city of Jhang at that time. It is contended that no public witness was associated in the recovery proceedings as recovery was allegedly effected from the person of the petitioner at the public place, and in the circumstances, the case against him is not free from doubt. The revision petition is allowed. The judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court dated 19-7-1992 and 8-8-1992 respectively are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. Presently he is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
Revision .