' Appellant Sajjad Haider stands convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (Ordinance XX of 1965) for possessing an unlicensed revolver and sentenced to one year's R. I.
2. The proceedings under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance are an offshoot of the case registered against the appellant Sajjad Haider and one Muhammad Riaz under section 392/398, P. P. C. In pursuance of F.
1. R. No, 294 of 15-8-1972, Police Station City Sheikhupura. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 15th August, 1972, Nasim-uz-Zaman (P. W. 1) and Abdur Rashid (P. W. 4) were standing near Chowk Pir Bahar Shah when revolver Exh. P. 1 was recovered from the person of the appellant and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh. P. B., which was duly attested by the above-named two witnesses. Some bullets were in the revolver while ten other bullets were recovered from the pocket of the appellant. Consequently, the appellant was challaned under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance.
3. In defence the appellant produced Muhammad Tufail D. W. 1, who stated that he was present when a taxi-car which was driven by Munshi Khan came to a halt. The police took Munshi Khan and the appellant to the Police Station and in his presence nothing was recovered from the appellant.
In fact there was some dispute between Munshi Khan and the appellant with regard to the amount of fare.
4. The learned trial Court believed the version of the prosecution and holding the P. Ws. To be disinterested and independent, found the appellant guilty of the offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, and sentenced him to undergo R. I. For one year, which was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the appellant in the connected case under sections 392/398, P. P. C.
5. The appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 392/398, P. P. C.
(Criminal Appeal No, 183 of 1976) has been heard alongwith the present appeal and the learned counsel for the appellant has not addressed any separate argument in support of this appeal.
6. After going through the record I am satisfied that the evidence of Nasim-uz-Zaman (P. W.1) and Abdur Rashid (P. W. 4) that revolver along with the bullets was recovered from the appellant, rings true. Admittedly, the appellant did not possess any licence for the said fire-arm. His case is A that the revolver does not belong to him. The evidence of D. W. 1, although not subjected to challenge through cross-examination, cannot be accepted, because he has even improved upon the version given by the appellant himself in his examination under section 342, Cr. P. C.
7. The result is that there is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.