Law:

Section:

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--Ghulam Kazim Soomro was posted as Sub Inspector in CIA at Karachi when the appellant who had been arrested earlier by Inspector Maqbool Hussain in some other offence was entrusted to him for interrogation. On 25-10-1988 during interrogation the appellant pointed out to a place to him and led the police party to barrack No.53 in Jut Lands Lines near a wood cutting machine. The Sub-Inspector alongwith two mashirs Waqar and Muhammad Aslam and Sub-Inspector Fazal Illahi reached that place. From under the stock of firewood the appellant took out two Klashnikoves and two Klashnikov magazines containing 20 cartridges each. They were seized in the presence of mashirs and police party and mashirnama was prepared. The arms and ammunition were scaled and thereafter F.I.R. was recorded and sent to Brigade Police Station for investigation as the offence was committed' in its jurisdiction. The arms and ammunition in scaled packets and the finger-prints of the appellant obtained by Sub-Inspector CIA were also forwarded to the finger print expert. After investigation the appellant was prosecuted and charged with offence punishable under section 13-B(b) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965.

The prosecution examined P.W.1 who had recovered arms and ammunitions, P.W.3 who had acted as mashir and seizure memo. was produced to prove recovery. P.W.2 Ghulam Abbas Jafferi was examined to prove that the finger-prints of the accused matched with finger-prints on the Klashnikoves. P.W.4 Maqbool Hussain to whom investigation was entrusted was examined and report of the ballistic expert was produced. The appellant denied the charges and stated that the police has foisted the arms upon him and made him to apply his thumb impression and finger-prints on the arms. On a question put to the appellant by the learned trial Court he stated that he has no licence for the arms and ammunitions. He however stated that he would examine the owner of the wood cutting machine as defence witness. Accordingly Javed Qureshi D.W.1 was examined. The learned trial Court convicted the appellant in the following manner:--