' MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, J.---Noor Ahmad alias Noora son of Qadir Bakhsh was tried by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and vide its impugned judgment dated 4-5-1993 the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) and sentenced him to undergo 5 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,30,000, in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For 6 months. To assail his conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The prosecution case is that on 27-2-1993 Muhammad Tufail Wattoo, S.H.O. (P.W.4) alongwith P.W.3 Hazoor Bakhsh and other police officials were led by the appellant to his house during investigation of a case F.I.R. No,290/76 and produced Klashnikov P.1 alongwith a pistol .12 bore which were secured by P.W.4 vide memo Exh.PC attested by P.W.3 Hazoor Bakhsh, as the appellant could not produce any licence for the same.
3. To prove the recovery of crime property the prosecution examined P.W.3 Hazoor Bakhsh and P.W.4 Muhammad Tufail Wattoo, S.H.O. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations and disowned the crime weapons and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case by the police at the instance of P.W.3 Hazoor Bakhsh as he was a nominated accused in the murder case of his maternal-uncle namely Jam Gul Hassan. The P.Ws. Deposed against him for the above reasons. In his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He stated that he did not want to add anything to his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the same be read as a part of his statement. He produced D.W.1 Abdul Haq, who stated about the innocence of the appellant.
Relying on the statements of P.W.3 Hazoor Bakhsh and P.W.4 Muhammad Tufail Wattoo S.H.O. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, but has prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence as the same, was harsh. The learned counsel appearing for the State has not been able to controvert his submissions.
5. We, after giving anxious consideration, are of the view that the sentence is really harsh and while maintaining the conviction we reduce the sentence to 3 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000, in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For 6 months. The appellant shall also be extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. With this modification in the sentence the appeal is dismissed.
Sentence reduced.