1. ' IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.---The appellant, Deedar Ali, has been found to be guilty of an offence under section 13(E) Arms Ordinance by the Judge Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Karachi (Mr. Abdul Mateen Khan), and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof suffer further imprisonment for one, year. He has been allowed benefit available under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. By the judgment passed on March 7, 1993 in Special Case No,63 of 1993. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.
2. ' The appellant was arrested by I3adin Police and his custody was then handed over to CIA Police at Karachi. On 5-8-1991 while in custody of CIA Police in Karachi he was taken by a team headed by Asghar Ali Shah in a Police van to Gulshan-e-Iqbal. He led the police party to a bungalow in Gulshan-e-Iqbal. The bungalow in question was raided by the police party at the pointation of the appellant. On reaching the bungalow the appellant took out a key from the window secretly kept there and opened the room on the ground floor. He produced two Klashnikovs with 100 rounds, 32 bore revolver and .30 bore pistol. He did not possess any licence for any of the weapons. This process was witnessed by P.W. Haji Nauroze Khan and P.W. Muhammad Shafeeq, who acted as Mashirs and they were picked up by the police from a bus-stop on the way. The police secured the arms mentioned above from the room on the ground floor under a bed wrapped in a Chadar.
3. Police then went on the first floor of that bungalow and knocked the door of a room and found three other persons in that room and from their possession some other arms and ammunitions were also secured. Police after usual investigation sent up the present appellant to stand trial as stated above while the other persons were separately challaned before the same Court.
4. ' The prosecution in support of the case examined the two Mashirs, Nauroze Khan and Muhammad Shafeeq and other police officers to prove the charge against the appellant.
5. ' The appellant examined himself on oath and he denied the allegations made against him by the Police. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied all the allegations made against him by the prosecution witnesses and claimed that the entire evidence against him was false and was based on the evidence of stock witnesses of the police.
6. ' The trial Judge ultimately convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
7. ' Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, Advocate for the appellant, mainly contended as follows:
(1) That the prosecution witnesses are stock witnesses and unworthy of credit.
(2) The prosecution has failed to give any justification of arrest and detention of the appellant by the Badin Police.
(3) That according to the case of prosecution after the appellant had led the police to the recovery of certain arms and ammunition from one room of the bungalow in Gulshan-e-Iqbal, the police arrested two other persons, Muhammad Muzaffar and Asim Hussain, from the first floor of the same house and secured arms and ammunition from both of them. Nauroze Khan, the principal Mashir in the case of the appellant, acted as Mashir in those two cases. Mr. Abdul Mateen Khan, Judge Special Court (S.TA.), Karachi, tried all the three cases and out of the three cases he has acquitted the two persons who were arrested from the first floor of the house being in possession of illicit arms and ammunition. P.W. Nauroze Khan was convicted by the Court for giving false evidence in the connected two cases. Under the circumstances, no credence can be attached to his evidence in the case against the appellant.
8. ' Mr. Ashiq Raza, Advocate appeared for the State and supported the judgment impugned in the case.
9. From the very inception of the investigation in this case the role of the police has been shady.
10. Reasons for the arrest of the appellant by the Badin Police and his detention by the army have not been satisfactorily explained in the case. Nauroze Khan, the Mashir in this case was examined in the connected cases relating to securing of illicit arms from the possession of other persons in the same transaction and was not believed and the accused in the two cases acquitted and he was also convicted for perjury in the case.
11. Proviso to Article 3 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provides that a person shall not be competent to testify if he has been convicted by a Court for perjury or giving false evidence. The second proviso of the section further provides that such witness can only be examined if he has repented after that incident and mended his ways. The trial Judge has accepted the evidence P.W. Nauroze Khan without complying the provisions of the second proviso to section 3 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.
12. This witness was convicted on the same day when the judgment in the case was being announced by the same judge. He, according to the provisions of law referred above, was not a competent witness. The case against the appellant has, therefore, been decided on inadmissible evidence.
13. The trial Judge has also not been able to point out the special reasons for accepting the evidence of P.W. Nauroze Khan, whose evidence was not accepted by him in the other two connected cases.
14. The prosecution in view of above have not been able to prove their case against the appellant. The judgment and sentence impugned in this appeal are set aside and the appeal is allowed. Unless the appellant is required in some other case he shall be released forthwith. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.