2006 PLP 2464 (YLR)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.

Zulfiqar Ali alias Bhutto appellant was tried under section 9(c) of C.N.S.A. by the learned Special Judge, C.N.S.A. in case F.I.R. No.148, dated 4-4-2003 registered at Police Station City Division, Sheikhupura. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 25-10-2003 convicted the appellant under section 9(c) of C.N.S.A. and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. plus fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to further undergo 3 months' S.I. The appellant has tiled the instant appeal against his sentence and conviction.

2. Briefly the facts are that on 4-4-2003 at 12-10 p.m., Mukhtar Ahmad, S.-I. P.W.4 along with Muhammad Saleem P.W.5, Muhammad Khalid and Muhammad Ashraf constables was present on Lahore Sheikhupura Road in front of General Bus Stand when he received secret information that the appellant was selling charas in bulk in Sheikhupura. On pointation of the informer, he was apprehended and on his personal search, 2 kilograms charas was recovered wrapped in a polythene paper and kept in Chaddar. A quantity of 10 grams charas was separated for transmission to the Chemical Examiner and the remaining was sealed. The memo. was attested by P.W.4 and P.W.S. The parcels were kept for safe custody by Abdul Majid constable P.W.3 who handed over the same to Shaukat Ali. P. W.1 for transmission to the Chemical Examiner which were delivered intact. The Chemical Examiner report was tendered in evidence which support the prosecution evidence.

3. The evidence of the prosecution is consistent and confidence-inspiring. Their testimony was not shaken in cross-examination. No ill-will has been mentioned against the police or the officials who were present on petrol duty.

4. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. in answer to question No.5 stated that his father was murdered by Ghulam Haider, Furqan Ali, Nabi Ahmad, Zulfiqar and Muhammad Yousaf. He lodged an F.I.R. The Investigating Officer had forced him to enter into compromise but he did not agree which resulted into registration of instant case. He produced Muhammad Iqbal D.W.1 and Muhammad Amir D.W.2. D.W.1 stated that he had appeared in defence of the appellant before the police whereas D.W.2 stated that neither he nor D.W.1 appeared before the police to prove innocence of the appellant. Muhammad Iqbal is related to the accused in murder case. Both D.W.1 and D.W.2 are co-villagers of the appellant. He also placed on record copy of F.I.R. No.331/202 Exh.DA.1 evidencing commission of the murder. The statements of D.Ws. shall not render any help to the appellant's case. He did not elect to appear in the witness-box as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.

5. The appellant was released on bail vide order dated 3-3-2004. Notices was issued to him. In response to notice, brother of the appellant has entered appearance in Court. He states that he has been arrested and lodged in jail in another case registered under C.N.S.A.

6. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant. His sentence and conviction do not call for any interference. The learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view by awarding him sentence of 2 years' on recovery of charas weighing 2 kilograms.

7. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. H.B.T./Z-23/L Appeal dismissed.