' MUHAMMAD RAFiQ TARAR, J.-Zulfuiqar appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, for keeping an unlicensed gun and three cartridges in his possession. By judgment dated 29th November 1975 he was convicted oa the said charge and sentenced to one year's R. I. He has appealed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30th September 1973 late Sub-Inspector Inayat Ullah was present in village Thatha Sargana in connection with investigation of the connected murder case when hiding themselves in the bela in the area of village Burj Lal. He along with the recovery witnesses rushed to that place and ound the appellant and his co-accused in the murder case, present there. He arrested them and recovered gun (Exh. P-1) and three cartridges (Exh. P-2/1-3) from the appellant for which he could not produce any licence. The Sub-Inspector drafted the complaint (Exh. P-B/1) and sent it to the police station for the registration of the case. On the basis of Exh. P-B-1 formal F. I. R. (Exh. P-B) was recorded at the police station by Allah Data, Head Constable, P. W.
2. After the investigation, the appellant was challaned. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against him. No evidence was led in defence.
3. In support of its case the prosecution examined Pehlwan P. W. 1 who is a resident of village Thatha Sargana. Inayat Ullah Sub-Inspector could not be examined as he had died. Another recovery witness, namely, Naja was also not examined. Pehlwan P. W. Supported the recovery of illicit gun from the appellant. In cross-examination he admitted that village Burj Lal was at a distance of 6/7 killas from the place of recovery and that no resident of that village was made to join the investigation. He also admitted that he witnessed the recovery of crime empties in the connected murder case on 24-9-1973 and was a witness to the recovery affected from Matiaela and Yusuf accused near Rest House Ichharwal. I hese facts show that he took keen interest in the investigation. There is no explanation on the file about the non-production of Naja P. W. The Investigating Officer could not be produced as he had died. The appellant had no opportunity to cross-examine any other witness and, in the circumstances, we are of the view that it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant on the solitary statement of Pehlwan P. W.
4. For the foregoing reasons we accept this appeal, set aside the convic-i tion and sentence of the appellant and acquit him. The appellant is on bail. He shall be discharged from his bail bond.