' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---.This criminal petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-3-2000 passed by a learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court in Special Anti-Terrorism Appeal No,177 of 1999 (Ali Gohar Jatoi v. The State), whereby the judgment of conviction dated 18- 11-1999 passed by Anti-Terrorism Court No,VI in at Case No,343 of 1999 (The State v. Ali Gohar Jatoi) was maintained.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated, are that on 30-8-1999 at about 1900 hours one Ali Moosa Khan lodged an F.I.R. With Clifton Police Station, stating therein that on the said date at 1645 hours while driving Vehicle No,G1228 when he reached Khayaban-e-Saeedi near Bilawal House and was enquiring about some address, a grey coloured car bearing registration No,ACB 250 stopped near him, two young persons alighted from the car, came to him and on the point of T.T.' Pistols he was made to sit in his vehicle and asked him not to raise commotion and be seated else he would be shot dead. The third companion of the accused remained seated in the car. All the accused persons were young. The accused persons, after dropping him in Block-7, Clifton, Karachi, drove away his vehicle. After the usual investigation, the petitioner/accused was arrested and was sent up for trial before the trial Court. A charge under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act read with section 392, P.P.C. Was framed against the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty. So far the remaining accused, they were declared absconders. After recording of prosecution evidence and after examination of the petitioner/accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. And defence witnesses, the trial Court convicted the petitioner under section 7-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act read with section 392, P.P.C. And sentenced him to seven years' R.I. And fine of Rs,20,000, and in default of payment of fine, six months' S.I. The amount of fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid to the owner of the vehicle under section 540,A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed Special Anti-Terrorism Appeal No,177 of 1999 before Sindh High Court at Karachi, which was heard by the learned Division Bench and dismissed, maintaining the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the Courts below have misread the ocular, recovery and identification evidence, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. We do not find merit and substance in the contention. P.W.2, Ali Moosa Khan, the driver of the vehicle from whom vehicle was snatched from the place of occurrence by the petitioner and the absconding accused, has fully implicated the petitioner with the commission of the crime and in the identification parade held before the Judicial Magistrate, the present petitioner was identified by him. His testimony could not be shaken in the cross-examination. So far recovery of the snatched vehicle, it was recovered at the pointation of the petitioner in presence of Mashir P.W.5, Saeed Khan, who deposed that the memo. Of recovery and seizure of Toyota Hiace (Exh.16) bore his signature, and also identified the vehicle recovered at the pointation of the petitioner, P.W.7, Abdul Razak, has also corroborated P.W.2, Ali Moosa Khan, on the point that the vehicle was snatched from Ali Moosa Khan at the point of weapon by the three accused persons. P.W.8, Erum Jehangir, Judicial Magistrate, has also corroborated the statement of P.W.2, Ali Moosa Khan, to the effect that he had identified correctly the petitioner in the identification parade. All the said P.Ws.
Were cross-examined by the learned defence counsel but their veracity could not be shaken. The ocular evidence of P.W.2, Ali Moosa Khan, is corroborated by recovery of the snatched vehicle at the pointation of the petitioner and the evidence of identification of the petitioner. The prosecution has proved the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. There are concurrent findings of fact with regard to the snatching of the vehicle by the petitioner and his two absconding companions and its recovery at his pointation as well as the evidence on the point of his identity.
5. There is no misreading of evidence and we find that no miscarriage of justice has occasioned, consequently this petition for leave has no merit, 8 therefore, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.