1. ' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.----By this criminal appeal, the appellant Muhammad Arif alias Mama has assailed the judgment of trial Court dated 10-11-2001 whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. For seven years and to pay fine of Rs,20,000. In default of the payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer R.I. For three months more.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. No,25 of 2000 of Police Station Boat Basin, Karachi under section 13-D of Arms Ordinance are that on 30-5-2000 S.-I. Muhammad Ejaz Awan with police party of said police station was on patrolling duty when at about 4-00 a.m. At Service Road, Shahrea Ghalib opposite an open plot, Block-2, Clifton, Karachi he found one person going in suspicious condition holding one bag. He enquired from the said person about his name, who disclosed his name as Muhammad Arif alias Mama. He searched the bag and recovered two kalashnikovs, 250 rounds, two T.T. Pistols and three magazines containing 15 bullets for which said accused failed to produce licences whereupon police arrested the appellant/accused and brought him alongwith case property at police station and registered the case.
3. ' After usual investigation the appellant/accused was sent up to stand trial. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of the aforesaid offence before the trial Court and claimed to be tried.
4. ' The prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.I HC Muhammad Yousaf as Exh.4 and P.W.2 complainant S.-I. Muhammad Ejaz Awan as Exh.6 who is also Investigating Officer of the case and thereafter prosecution closed its side by statement as Exh.7.
5. ' The appellant/accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Exh.8 denied the allegations made against him by the prosecution. He did not examine any witness in his defence and stated to be examined himself on oath as contemplated under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, later on he moved an application to the effect that he does not want to examine himself on oath for the reason that he was unaware of the meaning of oath.
6. ' The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated hereinabove.
7. ' We. Have heard Mr. S.K. Jatoi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused and Mr. Habib Ahmed, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh appearing on behalf of the State.
8. ' It, is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused that no recovery was effected from his client and arms and ammunition were foisted upon him by the prosecution. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused was on the point that the alleged recovery of arms and ammunition is in violation of the provisions contained in section 103, Cr.P.C. As there was no private witness to the alleged recovery and that since the appellant/accused was the political worker of MQM, therefore, he was falsely involved in the case by the prosecution.
9. ' Learned Assistant Advocate-General vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused.
10. ' The perusal of the material placed on record shows that during early hours of the day i,e, at about 4-00 a.m. a large cache of arms and ammunition was recovered from the possession of the appellant/accused. It is stated by the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination that at early hours of morning no person was available to witness the recovery. Even otherwise if complainant party had gone in search of the private witnesses there was every possibility of the escaping of appellant.. In the case of Zahir Khan v. State reported in 1995 SCM R 1793 it was held by the apex Court that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Lay down a rule of procedure and not of evidence, therefore, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in respect of strict compliance with the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. As the same would depend upon the circumstances of each case. No material has been placed on record from which it could be deduced that complainant or any of the P.W. Was biased against the appellant/accused. Even in cross-examination no suggestion was made to any prosecution witness that appellant was implicated in the case as he was a political worker of MQM. The policeman is as a good witness as any other person until and unless it is proved that he bore grudge or was inimical towards the accused or his evidence was tainted with mala fide. It is generally observed that nowadays it is common practice that private persons in order to avoid the rigour of visiting the police stations and Courts are not prepared to act as witness. The prosecution evidence remained unshattered in the cross-examination. No, material contradiction has been pointed out by the defence. It is well-settled that immaterial contradictions and minor discrepancies or omissions found in the evidence of the P.Ws. Are to be overlooked.
11. Merely because the prosecution witnesses are police personnel is no ground for the rejection of their testimony. Nothing has been brought on record from which it could be said that the police foisted such a large cache of weapons and ammunition upon the appellant/accused. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution in the circumstances has succeeded in establishing its case against the appellant/accused beyond any shadow of doubt. The learned trial Court has given elaborate reasons in the judgment and it appears that not a single aspect of the matter while assessing the evidence was ignored. Nothing has been pointed out from which it could be said that the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity and material irregularity and we do not find any good reason to disagree with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
12. ' By a short order dated 17-5-2002 we had dismissed the instant appeal. The foregoing are the detailed reasons for the said order.