' MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, J.--- This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment, dated 22- 10-1991 passed by the learned Judge/Presiding Officer for Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 13-A of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 to undergo 7 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,70,000 in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For 2 years.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that P.W.5 Muhammad Sarwar, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station "B"
Division, Rahimyar Khan on 18-7-1991 at 11-00 a.m. Drafted a complaint Exh.P.A. At Irshad Colony, and on its basis formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was recorded by P.W.1 Ghulam Farid, Moharrir to the effect that the appellant under arrest during interrogation of case F.I.R. No,174 of 1991 made a disclosure and led to the recovery of klashnikov P.1, canvas bag P.2 which contained 54 live bullets P.3/1-54 magazine P.4 along with 15 live rounds, P.5/1-15 from his residential house and as the appellant could not produce any license the crime property was secured by P.W.5 vide memo. Exh.P.B.
Attested by P.W.2 Zahid Farooq and P.W.3 Qadir Baldish, A.S.-I. After completion of the investigation P.W.5 challenged the appellant. The learned trial Court framed charge under section 13-A of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 against the appellant to which he denied and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined 5 P.Ws. In all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Ghulam Farid on the basis of complaint Exh.P.A. Had drafted formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1. P.W.2 Zahid Farooq had joined the police investigation and in his presence the appellant had offered to 'produce klashnikov from his house who was taken along and the appellant produced klashnikov P.1 from a Jisti Paiti lying in his room, which also contained 54 live bullets P.3/1-54 in a plastic bag P.2, a magazine P.4 which contained 15 live rounds P.5/1-15. P.W.5 secured the same vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.3 Qadir Balchsh, A.S.-I. Witnessed the recovery of P.1 to P.5 vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by him and P.W.2. P.W.4 Talah Muhammad an armourer examined klashnikov and submitted certificate Exh.P.D.
P.W.5 Muhammad Sarwar, S.H.O. Is the complainant and Investigating Officer of the case, who on 18-7-1991 while working as S.H.O. Interrogated the appellant, who led to the recovery of crime property P.1 to P.5 from his house. The appellant could not produce any licence of the same and P.W.5 secured the same vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.5 had drafted the complaint Exh.P.A. Against the appellant and after completion of the investigation had challaned the appellant.
4. The appellant when examined under section 342; Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution evidence and stated that the P.Ws. Deposed against him at the instance of the police and had produced D.W.1 Inayat Ali. D.W.1 stated that the klashnikov P.1 was recovered from his son Ghulam Shabbir from his house. D.W.2 Tariq Mahmud stated that the police had recovered the klashnikov and bullets from Ghulam Shabbir, absconder accused and no recovery was effected from the appellant. The appellant also appeared as his own witness of defence and has stated that he had been implicated by the police in a false case and that he is innocent. He tendered documents Exh.D.1 and Exh.D.2 in defence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Our attention was drawn to the charge framed against the appellant by the trial Court, wherein there is no mention about production of the case property by the appellant in police custody but it is mentioned that the appellant had voluntarily offered to produce klashnikov along with its bullets live rounds magazine etc. P.W.2 stated during cross-examination that he lived at a distance of 2/2- 1/2 kilometres from Irshad Colony, the place of recovery and it was correct that Irshad Colony and Rizwan Colony had their own Councillors. He had joined the investigation one day before. No respectable of the locality was associated in the recovery proceedings. Neither any respectable was summoned nor asked to join the recovery proceedings. P.W.2 is not resident of the locality and lived at a distance of 2/2-1/2 kilometres from Irshad Colony and had joined the police investigation one day before. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W.2 and other P.Ws. Who are police officials and their evidence do not inspire confidence. Formal charge framed against the appellant was defective one and not in accordance with law.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and giving him the benefit of doubt, we acquit him of the charge. The appellant is in jail, who shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.