' MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J.---Amar Khan appellant was tried by Special Court No,IV-Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, convicted on 28-8-1991 and sentenced to three years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,30,000 or in default thereof R.I. For one year. He has appealed.
2. Feroze Khan, Inspector Anti-Dacoity Staff QiIla Gujjar Singh, Lahore (P.W.3) was investigating case F.I.R. No,8 of 1991 under section 382, P.P.C. Of Police Station Old Anarkali, Lahore. He arrested the appellant in the said case under section 54, Cr.P.C. And on 28-5-1991 he made disclosure and got recovered sten gun from his factory situate at Bund Road, Lahore. He drafted a complaint (Exh.PA) and on its basis formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA/1) was registered.
2. The appellant at the close of the trial in his statement pleaded that the case was false. He was resident of Beadon Road, Lahore where two parties were on litigation including cases of murder and in one of such cases he was falsely arrested by the police and was granted bail by the High Court. He also claimed that he had no factory whatsoever nor he had ever lived in Sanda and the proceedings of the Investigating Officer were the result of mala fide.
3. The recovery of sten gun from the appellant was not witnessed by any public person. Only Shah Muhammad, S.I. (P.W.2) and Muhammad Feroze Inspector (P.W.3) have stated about it. After having been taken through their statements we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the case is not free from doubt. Muhammad Feroze Inspector admitted in cross- examination that in case F.I.R. No,8/91 two unknown persons were mentioned and he had arrested one Afzal Wasim in that case while Amar appellant wds got discharged in the said case and he had not mentioned the date of his arrest in the case diaries. According to him the recovery was effected from the area of P.S. Sanda wherefrom no police help was sought, the side gate of the factory of the appellant was only open from which they entered, the door of the room from which the sten gun was recovered was lying open with nobody in the factory while the other rooms of the factory were locked. He had not gone to the house of the appellant in Sanda. He further admitted that the appellant was not engaged in any vocation. If so, the statement that he was owning a factory is false. Shah Muhammad, S.I. (P.W.2) has been a witness in innumerable Arms Act cases alongwith Faqiria and he too admitted that the room from where the sten gun was recovered was lying open. No magazine or bullets seem to have been recovered. There was no fun in keeping a sten gun and that too in a room of a factory with other premises locked but the said room without any lock. The case seems to be a cooked up one.
4. The upshot is that the appeal is accepted, the appellant is granted the benefit of doubt and stands acquitted. The appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.