' MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J.--- Muhammad Shafi appellant on trial for the offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, was convicted by Judge Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, vide judgment, dated 21-11-1990, and sentenced to six years' R.I.
And a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default thereof 6 months' R.I. He has appealed.
2. Zafar Mahmood, Inspector (P.W.3) sent complaint (Exh. PA.) on 20-5-1990 at 10-30 p.m. To the Police Station where formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.B.) was registered by Sahib Dad, A.S.I. (P.W.1).
3. According to the version in the F.I.R. Zafar Mahmood, Inspector was patrolling in official vehicle and reached Qadir Colony, secret information was conveyed to him that a person carrying a Klashnikov was standing on the roadside. Raid was conducted and the fellow holding the Klashnikov was overpowered and Klashnikov No,1715025, which number was tried to be rubbed out and a magazine broken from one side, were recovered. The fellow turned to be Muhammad Shafi appellant who on further interrogation informed that he was involved in the dacoity of a car on Shadiwal Road on 30-3-1990.
4. The appellant at the close of the trial in his statement informed that Touseef Hussain Shah and Mir Iftikhar were produced before the police on 5-5-1990 in a case registered under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, he was tortured by the police, injured and falsely implicated by the police in the present case.
5. We have been taken through the statements of Zafar Mahmood, Inspector (P.W.3) and Muhammad Sabir, Head Constable (P.W.2). The Inspector admitted in cross-examination that the original recovery memo. And its carbon copy (Exh.P.C.) had the date of recovery as 21-5-1990. The original was on the record of the case under the Hudood Ordinance and section 307, P.P.C. He also admitted that the number of the Klashnikov given in recovery memo. Was 1715025 while the Klashnikov (P.1) produced in Court had number 1715028 and it was not in workable condition and had a defective loading instrument. He also admitted that the complaint (Exh.P.A.) was not drafted by him and even all the case diaries were in the hand of Muhammad Hanif, Sub-Inspector. Now this Sub-Inspector as per the report (Exh.PA.) was not with the Inspector when the raid was conducted.
All this would show that the case was cooked up and a defective unworkable Klashnikov planted upon the appellant. This conclusion gets support from the statement of Muhammad Sabir, Head Constable. He admitted in cross-examination that a dacoity case was registered at Police Station Saddar, Gujrat prior to the present occurrence with no accused named therein. After the arrest of the accused in that case it also came to light that the appellant was involved in that dacoity. He denied that Aurang Zeb Jorha had produced the appellant on 5-5-1990 in the dacoity case. The recovery of the Klashnikov at the instance of the appellant is, therefore, a doubtful affair.
6. The appeal is accepted, the conviction and the sentence are hereby set aside and the appellant stands acquitted of the charge. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.