1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CH., J.--- Precisely stating facts are that appellant Muhammad Shareef son of Ghulam Muhammad resident of Mand was suspected to be killer of a Sepoy of F.C. Namely, Makhia Din, but he was not being arrested. Accordingly on 23-2-1996 Intelligence Agencies revealed to Syed Aizaz Shah Bukhari P.W.-Wing Commander F.C. Turbat that appellant has arrived in his village to celebrate Eid. Thus, a raid party was organised by the F.C. Officers alongwith Civil Administration and in the morning of 21-2-1996 at 8-00 hours he was arrested in presence of Abdul Hafeez, Tehsildar, Mand and allegedly following arms/ammunition were recovered from his possession:-- "(a) Sub-Machine gun 02 numbers
(b) Rifle Hamet 01 number
(c) Rifle Cal-243 01 number
(d) .12 bore shot gun s/b 01 number
(e) Magazine sub-machine gun 08 numbers
(t) Motor bike 01 number
(g) Binoculars 05 numbers
(h) Rounds sub-machine gun 300 numbers
(i) Rounds Rifle Harent 125 numbers
(j) Rounds Rifle Cal-243 03 numbers ' A case under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance was registered on 22-2-1996 against the appellant because he failed to produce license/documents for keeping the recovered articles in his possession. Investigation of the case was carried out by Tehsildar during course whereof he prepared site plan Exh.P./3-B and ultimately submitted challan before the Special Court Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Balochistan. Charge was read over to appellant on 2-9-1996, which was denied by him, as such prosecution led evidence of P.W.1 Major Syed Aizaz Shah Bukhari, P.W.2 Subedar Khan Muhammad and P.W.3 Abdul Hafeez, Tehsildar. Statement of appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. As well as under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Was also recorded wherein he denied to prosecution case. Learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 26-9-1996 convicted and sentenced the appellant for four years' R.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. ' We heard the appeal on 13-3-1997 when for the reasons to be recorded later on appeal was dismissed upholding the conviction order, but when we started recording reasons it transpired that in view of site plan Exh.P./3-B produced by P.W. Ahmed Hafeez, Tehsildar, it is not possible to conclude that the arms/ammunition were found in the exclusive possession of appellant because there were at least 3 houses situated at different places from where recoveries were effected and neither witnesses of F.C. Nor Tehsildar in their statements clarified that which house was in the possession/Control of the appellant. Actually this point was not argued specifically by the learned counsel for appellant nor Mrs. Ashraf Abbas who appeared as State Counsel. Since it was most important question for decision of the case, therefore, we decided to rehear the appeal on issuing fresh notices. Accordingly on 18-3-1997 again parties' counsel were heard.
3. ' Before dilating upon merits of the case foremost question for consideration is whether after dictating short order in the Court whereby appeal was dismissed later on during the process of recording reasons matter can be reopened or otherwise.
4. ' As far as Criminal Procedure Code is concerned there are two important sections which can be put into .Service to overcome the difficulty noted hereinabove. One is section 369, according to which save as otherwise provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force or in the case of High Court by the letters patent of such High Court, no Court when it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error. Second provision is contained in section 561-A according to which nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
5. ' In the former section subject to certain provisions of law or exercising jurisdiction of a High Court by the letters patent of such High Court which jurisdiction is now not available, no Court even including the High Court will alter or review the judgment except to correct a clerical error. Thus, it is necessary to examine that what is the definition of "judgment" whether short order disposing of the matter can be treated as "judgment" or otherwise.
6. ' In the Criminal Procedure Code word "judgment" has not been defined anywhere and same is the position in the Pakistan Penal Code. Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Mulla Ejhar Ali v.
7. Government of East Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173 has held that "a judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its mind to the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication. The ultimate may be reached by laborious effort but if final order does not bear an imprint of that offered and on the contrary discloses arbitrariness of thought or action, the feeling of its painful results, the justice has neither been done nor seems to have been done is inescapable". This view was later on followed in the case of Haji Abdul Baqi and another v. Muzafar Ali Khan and another PLD 1978 Quetta 56. Following the dictum of honorable Supreme Court it is to be observed that only those pronouncements which contain reasonings on the basis of point putfortlr for consideration as well as material available on record. Admittedly when a short order is recorded and subsequently is signed by the Court it also attains the status of the judgment as it has been held in PLD 1982 Kar. 250, therefore, in exercise of powers under section 369, Cr.P.C. After passing of the short order "judgment" cannot be altered.
8. ' Now we are left with the later provision, i,e, section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Which confers inherent jurisdiction on the Court on the basis whereof in the interest of justice Court seized with the matter can pass an appropriate order to secure the ends of justice.
9. Thus, we are of the opinion that such matters where a short order has been recorded, but before writing reasons in support thereof if new material comes in the notice of the Court or on the basis of the available record if it is observed that an important aspect either has not been pointed out during arguments of the case or it skipped notice of the Court, then in the interest of justice decision already recorded can be altered in order to secure the ends of justice.
10. ' In view of the above discussion now we would proceed to examine the statement of Ahmed Hafeez, Tehsildar who produced site plan Exh.P.3/B wherein in key notes at serial Nos.6, 8 and 9, three houses have been mentioned; whereas serial No,9 indicates that there is a Bazar in between them. As per the house shown at serial No,6 a harnet rifle and a shot gun was recovered from the house located at serial Nos.8 and 9 two klashnikoves separately were recovered. None of the witnesses appearing in support of prosecution case stated that out of those three houses which house belonged to appellant nor they stated that the arms ammunition was recovered at the potation of appellant, neither it is stated he had possession of all the three houses, if not, then which house was in his possession.
11. ' Thus, it leads us to conclude that prosecution has not brought sufficient D evidence to connect the appellant with the recovery of the arms ammunition taken out from three different places noted hereinabove, as such it is doubtful whether the accused/appellant had control over the arms ammunition recovered from them, therefore, it was difficult to conclude that he was found in possession of these articles without valid documents and under these circumstation he was entitled for acquittal.
12. ' For the foregoing reasons short order recorded in the Court on 13-3-1997, whereby appeal was dismissed, is recalled. Consequently appeal is accepted and conviction/sentence passed by Special Judge, Terrorist Activities against the appellant, dated 26-9-1996 is set aside. Appellant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.