Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 785 of 1977, heard on 29th October, 1978.

‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Recovery witnesses having no motive to falsely implicate accused‑‑Two witnesses being police officers and third from public‑ Prosecution evidence not controverted‑‑Case found to be overwhelming against accused‑‑Conviction maintained.

‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Sentence‑‑Simple imprisonment‑‑Accused having convicted in two cases and awarded simple imprisonment for one year in each‑ Sentences not to run concurrently‑‑Accused serving out a. year's sentence already‑‑Accused having remained in custody for about one year before conviction‑‑Notice to convert simple imprisonment into rigorous, held, was not desirable although sentence of simple imprisonment was also not justified.

Ch. Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 29th October, 1978.

Kandla, petitioner was tried for the offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. He was sentenced to one year's S.I. by the Magistrate 1st Class, Lyallpur on 31‑7‑1977. On appeal his conviction and sentence was maintained on 26‑10‑1977. Petitioner has come up in revision.

2. Petitioner was found in possession of unlicenced pistol in the vicinity of Chak No. 249/R.B. A police party was present on 4‑2‑1976 at about 8‑15 p.m. near Bangla Sidhwala. Petitioner was seen coming from the side of Abadi Chicha. He was checked and upon search, revolver P.1 and a cartridge P. 2 were recovered from his person. Since he had no licence for the same, these were taken into possession by P. W. 3 Tajamal Hussain, S.I. through memo. Exh. P.A. attested by P.W.1 Chiragh and P.W. 2 Muhammad Ashraf besides the S.I. Thereafter, complaint Exh. P.B. was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.P.B/1 was registered at Police Station Dijkot and the accused was sent up for trial. The petitioner denied the recovery and led no evidence in defence.

3. The recovery witnesses have no motive to falsely rope in the accused. True, P.W. 2 Muhammad Ashraf, A.S.I., P.W. 3 Tajamal Hussain, S.I. are police officials but P.W. 1 Chiragh is a member from public who was present at the Bangla and attested the recovery memo. The case is overwhelming against the petitioner. He did not controvert the prosecution case by defence evidence. His conviction is, therefore, maintained.

4. One year's S.I. was awarded to the petitioner on the same day in another Arms Ordinance case but the sentences in the two cases were not ordered to run concurrently. It may be mentioned here that the sentence of simple imprisonment was not proper. However, since the petitioner has already remained in custody before conviction and has served out about a year's sentence, I do not deem it proper to issue notice to him for converting his sentence into rigorous imprisonment. As observed earlier, he has already been in custody for over a year, the sentence already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice.

S.A. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.