MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.- Talib Hussain son of Ahmad Bakhsh appellant during investigation of the case under section 302/397 PPC registered against him through FIR No. 35 at Police Station Duneyapur led to the recovery of Kalshnikov PI with Magazine P2 from his residential house, whereupon a case under section 13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, XX of 1965 was registered against him vide FIR Ex.PA/1 on the complaint Ex.PA drafted by Muhammad Hussain, ASI PW4 who alongwith Bashir Ahmed, P.W.3 as members of the raiding party witnessed the recovery of the illicit arms from the house of the appellant. Muhammad Khalid HC recorded the formal FIR and Muhammad Iqbal Armourer after examination of the rifle in question declared the same as Kalashnikov, in working condition.
2. The appellant in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C, denying the allegation of possession of illicit arms and recovery of the same, pleaded innocence. He. Produced Amir Khan and Muhammad Sharif DWs in his defence.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Abdul Sattar the only public witness associated with recovery proceedings was not produced and the evidence of the remaining two police witnesses namely Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Hussain not confidence inspiring was not sufficient to award the conviction. He, however, without much stressing for the acquittal and further contesting the conviction submitted for reduction in the sentence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The non-production of Abdul Sattar, the public witness associated with the recovery proceedings has no adverse effect upon the evidence of Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Hussain PWs, who have categorically and consistently supported the prosecution case. The mere fact that they are police officials is no ground to exclude their evidence from the consideration if the same otherwise is confidence inspiring. The appellant during interrogation of the case led to the recovery of the illicit arms, the possession of which has been proved through the evidence of the members of the raiding party.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point any discrepancy or infirmity in the evidence of the police witnesses creating dent and doubt in the prosecution case. We, therefore, in the light off the foregoing discussion maintaining the conviction under section 13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 dismiss this appeal. However, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is not previous convict and further to provide him an opportunity to reform himself reduced his sentence to 3 years' R1 with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and is default of the payment of fine to further undergo R1 for six months. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr. P.t. Is also given to the appellant.