' Taj Muhammad son of Mir Atrial was tried for possession of a knife without a licence. On being committed in the connected murder case he was tried by Sh, Ijaz Nisar, Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi who convicted him under section 11 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous for one year, vide his judgment and order passed on 30.5-1974 which sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence of -life imprisonment awarded to Taj Muhammad appellant in the connected murder case. Taj Muhammad convict filed appeal through jail and was not represented through a counsel before me at the time of hearing of the appeal.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case was that Taj Muhammad appellant committed murder of Ahmed Khan deceased with a knife (P. I) and on being apprehended at the spot by the prosecution witnesses he was relieved of the blood-stained knife and was taken to the Police Station where the appellant was arrested and the knife (P. 1) was secured, vide memo Exh. P B. The recovery of the knife from the appellant was proved by Jan Muhammad (P. W. 1) and Amanat All (P. W. 2) apart from the Investigating Officer, Nasir Nawaz (P. W. 3). The testimony of the recovery witnesses was consistent, uniform and inspired confidence. They had no enmity with the appellant nor were they related with the deceased so as to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The appellant did not produce any licence for possession of knife (P. 1) recovery of which stood established. I have considered the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant from jail and have perused the judgment under appeal. I am satisfied that the recovery of knife (P. 1) from the appellant was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and it was not suggested to any of the recovery witnesses at any stage that the appellant produced any licence for its possession or that the knife (P. I) was not of the prohibited length. According to the judgment under appeal the knife was of clutch action. The learned trial Judge had ordered the sentence of one year awarded in this case to run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant in the connected murder case. The order under appeal is dated 30-5-1974 and the sentence in this case has already been served by the appellant according to the order under appeal passed by the learned trial Judge.
3. For the foraging reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are maintained and his appeal is dismissed.
4. A copy of this judgment be sent to the appellant through the Superintendent jail concerned.