IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No. 882 of 2019

Appellant: Nemo

The State: Through Mr. Khadim Hussain Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 29.08.2022

Date of judgment: 29.08.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is alleged that the appellant was found to be in possession of unlicensed pistol of 30 bore with magazine containing live five bullets of same bore by police party of PS Napier, which he allegedly used while committing robbery, for that he was booked and reported upon.

2. After due trial, the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 23(1)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and was sentenced to undergo for the period which he has already undergone with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 days by learned IX-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South vide judgment dated 21.11.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant appeal.

3. Since long, neither the appellant or his counsel is turning up to pursue the instant appeal, same therefore, could not be kept pending on file for want of their appearance, consequently, it was decided to be disposed of on merit after hearing learned Addl. P.G for the State.

4. Learned Addl. P.G for the State by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of instant appeal by contending that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.

5. Heard arguments and perused the record.

6. The appellant was apprehended at the spot when was found committing robbery and on arrest from him was secured an unlicensed T.T Pistol of 30 bore with magazine containing five live bullets of same bore, such fact takes support from the evidence of the complainant and P.Ws/mashirs. The pistol was subjected to forensic analyses and was found to be in working condition. No ill-will or malafide is apparent which could have justified the complainant to have involved the appellant in the false case by making foistation of unlicensed pistol upon him. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt. Indeed the appellant was dealt with leniently by learned trial Court by awarding him lesser punishment.

7. In view of above, it could be concluded safely that no case for making interference with the impugned judgment is made out by this Court by way of instant Appeal, it is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE