' Maqbul Ahmad petitioner was tried under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 by Mr. Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan, Magistrate Section 30, Pakpattan, who by his judgment dated 31st May 1976 convicted him on the said charge and sentenced him to three years' R.I. He filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence but the same was also dismissed on 16th December 1976 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Sahiwal. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court to question the correctness and propriety thereof.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 15th July 1970 the petitioner while in custody in a murder case, led to the recovery of a 303 rifle and two live cartridges which were taken into possession by Sultan Ahmad Khan, Sub-Inspector through memo Exh. P. A. Attested by Khadim Hussain, Hamid and Jan Muhammad Janu. As the petitioner could not produce any licence authorising him to keep the rifle, therefore, he was challaned.
3. In support of its case the prosecution examined three witnesses, namely, Sultan Ahmad Khan S.I.
Janu and Khadim Hussain.
4. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that he had been falsely implicated. He also examined three witnesses in his defence.
5. I have gone through the record with the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The conviction of the petitioner is based on the evidence of Sultan Ahmad S.I. And Khadim Hussain P.Ws, The learned trial Magistrate observed that Jan Muhammad alias Janu was not an impartial witness because he was related to Suleman deceased of the connected murder case but the aforesaid two witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this observation is based on misreading of evidence and the learned trial Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge took no notice of the fact that Khadim Hussain P. W. Was inimical towards the petitioner. In cross-examination Khadim Hussain P.
W. Admitted that he used to work at the tube-well of the father of the petitioner but was not paid his wages by the latter. In the circumstances the contention of the learned counsel for the- petitioner that Khadim Hussain was also an interested witness, has sufficient force. Janu P. W.
Admitted that many other persons were present at the time of recovery. In the first instance he stated that no impartial person was cited as a recovery witness but later on he deposed that Hamid Chowkidar and Khadim Hussain were independent witnesses. It is in the statement of Khadim Hussain P. W. That the cattle-shed from which the recovery was made belonged to Ahmad Yar grand-father of the petitioner and that Ahmad Yar, his two sons Niaz and Falek Sher and two grand-sons Sardar and Bakhshia used to reside in the said cattle-shed. He further stated that the other villagers also used to tether the cattle there and that the petitioner was residing in a different house. His evidence clearly shows that the rifle was recovered from an accessible place which was not in the exclusive possession of the petitioner. I am therefore, of the view that the judgments of the Courts below are unsustainable. Consequently, I allow this petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. {{FOOT NOTE}}