Find a Lawyer

Criminal. Revision No. 514 of 1985, decided on 17th November, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 439‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13‑‑ Recovery‑‑Police during patrol duty recovering unlicensed carbine from accused‑‑Recovery challenged on ground that all prosecution witnesses were police officials and nobody from public was produced Police officials, held, were not supposed to ask any body to join them as case was not of search or raid‑‑Recovery believed‑‑[ Recovery].

‑‑‑S. 439‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑ Conviction‑‑Revision against‑‑Recovery believed‑‑No discrepancy found in evidence of prosecution witnesses‑‑Judgments of lower Courts not based on misreading of evidence‑‑No illegality was committed by Courts below‑‑No case for interference by way of exercise of revisional jurisdiction, held, was made out‑‑Conviction maintained.

Zahid Hussain for Petitioner.

Shah Nawaz for A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 17th November, 1985.

The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 1‑10‑1985 of Sessions Judge, Khushab, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28‑9‑1985 of M.I.C. Jauharabad, whereof the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965.

2. The prosecution case, briefly, is that the petitioner was hauled up by Muhammad Akram, A.S.I. (P.W.3) at 3‑30 p.m. on 7‑12‑1984, when he was on patrol duty alongwith F.Cs Surakhor Khan (P.W.1) and Parvez Akhtar (P.W.2), on Muzaffargarh Road, in Jauharabad. Carbine (P.1) alongwith two cartridges were recovered from his possession. Since he did not possess any licence for that, he was Proceeded against under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965.

3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the witnesses in this case are police officials and nobody from then public was produced is devoid of any force, in view of the fact that, the police officials were on patrol duty when they came across the petitioner and none from the public was accompanying them. Since it was not a case of search or raid they were not supposed to ask anybody to join them. In fact, the police officials could not have known that while on patrol duty they will come across the petitioner while being in possession of a carbine.

The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statements of P.Ws. are discrepants has been examined by going through the evidence. The only discrepancy pointed out by the) learned counsel for the petitioner is that one of the witnesses stated B that the petitioner was hauled up from the main Bazar while the other stated that he was hauled up from near the forest nursery, stands explained in the cross‑examination of P.W.2, where it is recorded that office of forest department and nursery are also on the main road near the main Bazar.

4. No illegality has been pointed nor is there any misreading of evidence. No case for interference by way of exercise of revisional powers is made out. The revision petition is dismissed.

H.A.K. Revision 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.