P L D 1993 Supreme Court 38 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J.‑‑The petitioner/convict under section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1970 having been awarded 10 years' R.I. and other sentences including whipping has sought leave to appeal. The narcotic stuff involved in the case is heroin. The Field Investigating Officer Pakistan Narcotics Control Board Muhammad Arshad Khan P.W.2 made the following statement of case against the petitioner in his examination‑in‑chief.‑‑ "Four or rive days prior to 29‑5‑1990 Regional Director, Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, Lahore had received a secret information that a person named Ashraf was selling heroin in Bhai Phero at Bus Stop Faisalabad. The Regional Director deputed me to look into the matter. I searched out the secret informer and reached Bhai Phero in his company. I contacted Muhammad Ashraf accused, now present in Court, and settled to purchase five kilograms heroin from him at the rate of Rs.15,000 per kilo. It was also settled that the accused would receive the amount at the time of delivery of the heroin. It was also settled that the accused would hand over the heroin near the Old Truck Stand Baba Niaz Shah Bhai Phero at 12‑00 noon on 29‑5‑1990. Thereafter I returned to Lahore and arranged a raiding party. On 29‑5‑1990 1 started towards Bhai Phero alongwith staff members by two separate vehicles at about 10‑00 a.m. Fajar Khan, H.C. and Abdul Ghafoor, H.C. were also the members of the raiding party. We reached the specific place in Bhai Phero at 11‑20 a.m. I parked the vehicles at some separate place at a distance of about one furlong from the specific place. My staff members were in uniform so I directed them to be present in the vehicles and to apprehend the accused on a specific signal to be given by me to them on the arrival of the accused at the specific place. Some staff members who were wearing public clothes were directed by me to remain present near the place. At about 12‑30 noon Ashraf accused, now present in the Court, appeared on the specified place having a plastic bag on his left shoulder. He came to me and demanded the amount. I asked him to show the heroin. He showed me the heroin and then I gave a signal to my staff members and in this way we encircled the accused and apprehended him there. The bag in the possession of the accused was opened and from that bag heroin weighing 5 k.g. consisting of five packets each weighing one k.g. therein was recovered. Those five packets of heroin were taken into possession by me vide Memo. Exh.PB. The rive packets are present before the Court now and these are P‑1 to P‑

5. I also drafted the complaint Exh.P.A. at the spot and sent the same to P.S. Joint Task Force, Ichhra, Lahore through Abdul Qayyum, F.C. for the formal registration of case against the accused. The accused was arrested by me in this case. I also recorded the statements * of P.Ws. under section 161, Cr.P.C. I prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence Exh.P.C. The note No.1, the drawings and figures of said site plan are in my hand and signed by me. Out of the recovered heroin, heroin weighing 10 grams was separated from each packet and sent to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis vide separate sealed parcels. After the completion of the investigation I submitted the challan against the accused." Learned counsel for the petitioner has mentioned about half a dozen discrepancies and has contended that the eye‑witnesses and those of recovery are not from the public and further that the raid organized for detection of the crime and the apprehension of the culprit was defective. The nature and discrepancies depending upon the circumstances of each case can be taken into account by the trial Court and the first appeal Court. it cannot be said that they ignored the evidence or misread the same in this case. The broad features of this case and the appreciation of the material against the petitioner do not justify interference by this Court as no serious infirmity of law or appraisal of evidence is involved. The argument, of the learned counsel that in some cases on account of discrepancies also this Court has interfered is of no help to the petitioner because those cases are only few rather negligible and those in which the arguments as advanced in this case have not been accepted by this Court for interference, are innumerable. It therefore, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether; it is fit for re‑appraisal of evidence by this Court and no hard and fast B rule can be laid down. The first two arguments advanced by the learned counsel, accordingly, are of no avail to the petitioner in the circumstances of this case. The recent developments in the detection and investigation of the crime in narcotics by the designated agencies are much better than they used to be. Amongst others the introduction of the raid mechanism as in the cases of corruption is re‑assuring in so far as avoidance of false implication is concerned. Not that, all other methods are either improper or to be given up altogether. The raid mechanism if available in a case, will give a protective cover to the concerned agencies against allegations of false implications, planting or trapping without any substantial material. The elements in well organized raid in a large ‑ number of cases can provide rebuttal of false 'implication. A question can arise; whether, there are enough executive Magistrates who can be requested to supervise the raids in the cases of narcotics can be more seriously examined by the Administrative Agencies dealing with the detection and punishment of this branch of crime. If ' not all the cases, those involving very big quantities, amounts, and/or very harsh punishments can be considered for at least an experimental measure ‑ wherever possible be brought before Courts through recognized and honest methods of well‑organized raids. it is true that a decoy witness in corruption cawb " ntA always been looked upon with any favour but in m‑ahly it is On account of his participation and instrumentality that in well-organized raids even involving a decoy witness the rate of false implication goes considerably down and considerably the success in convicting real culprits goes very high. In another case, today in a similar raid (Cr.P.82(S)/92) a decoy witness actually made the purchase of a smaller quantity of heroin, passed on marked currency note to the accused which at raid was recovered from him together with the bigger quantity of heroin from which a smaller had been sold to the decoy witness. These features may further be examined for application of better measures and methods for detectidn and punishment of this branch of crime which tiff recently was going beyond check and hindrance. If the existing controls are becoming effective, fresh and new methods can, as discussed above, also be adopted for eradicating it altogether. With these observations leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. M.BA./M‑1692/S