' Faiz Muhammad son of Sher Muhammad, was convicted and sentenced to one year's R. I. Under section 19/11/78 of the Arms Act, for keeping in his possession an unlicensed country-made pistol P.
1 and rounds P. 2/ 1-3, vide judgment of Malik Bashir Ahmad, Magistrate First Class, Lyallpur, dated 27-7-1964. His appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, was dismissed on 15-7-1965 as being without any merits.
2. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Saadat Ali, A. S. I., P. W. 1 while on patrol duty received secret information that the petitioner who was on his way to General Bus Stand from Chenab Club was found to be carrying unlicensed pistol P. 1 alongwith two live bullets. This witness was accompanied by Abdul Majid and Imdad Ali P. Ws. The A. S. I. Saadat Ali P. W. Apprehended the petitioner and after observing necessary formalities, he recovered the pistol and two live bullets from the fold of his trousers. Since, the petitioner could not show any licence for the same, the A. S.
1. Challaned him under section 19/11/78 of the Arms Act.
4. The petitioner professed his innocence and stated that he was called by the police when he was working at his shop. At that time two or three constables had a boy in custody. The boy was let of at the Police Station while the petitioner was detained and challaned. He produced two witnesses, namely Ghulam Muhammad D. W. 1 and Muhammad Rafiq D. W.
2. These witnesses deposed that the petitioner was the person of good character and earned his living through honest means and was by profession a shoes-mender.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that when both the prosecution witnesses having been declared hostile, it was highly unsafe to warrant conviction on the solitary evidence of the A. S. I. He has relied on PLD 1963 Pesh. 161, a Division Bench ruling of this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact the petitioner has been made a scapegoat for some other culprits and was falsely roped in this case.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the entire evidence against the petitioner consists of two P. Ws. Besides Saadat Ali P. W.
1.f, It has been verified from the record that both, Abdul Majid P. W. 2 and Imdad Ali P. W. 3, were declared hostile by the Police. In view of th law laid down the evidence of these two witnesses cannot be read eithe in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the defence, therefore, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the sole testimony of the A. S. I., the reading of which does not inspire confidence. This witness when pu to the test of cross-examination, gave vague replies and failed to giv the names of his companions. He also was unable to tell at what tim he reached the Bus Stand. In view of his performance no reliance can b placed on his testimony which lacks corroboration.
7. The result of the above discussion is that I accept the revisio petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acqui him. The petitioner was released on bail on 3-8-1965, therefore, he is discharged of his bail bonds.