20Q7 PLP 2867(2) (YLR)
GHULAM ZOHRA alias RANI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 20Q7 PLP 2867(2) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Chowhan and Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM ZOHRA alias RANI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 20Q7 PLP 2867(2) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 20Q7 PLP 2867(2) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Chowhan and Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 20Q7 PLP 2867(2) (YLR) (GHULAM ZOHRA alias RANI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN J.
Ghulam Zohra alias. Rani appellant was convicted under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the learned Judge Special Court CNS, Islamabad vide judgment dated 21-1-2004 in case F.I.R. No.347 dated 9-8-2000 registered at Police Station Industrial Area Islamabad and sentenced to two years R.I. with a fine of Rs.20,000 or in lieu thereof to further undergo three months' S.I. She was given the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 9-8-2000 Arshad Ali Khokhar Inspector CIA along with other police officials on a spy information apprehended the appellant and 110 grams heroin was recovered from her.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined Muhammad Ashraf as P.W. who simply took the complaint to the police station for registration of the case. Parveen Akhtar Lady constable P.W.2., Shahid Nawaz constable P.W.3 and Munir Ahmad, P.W.4 are the witnesses of recovery. Muhammad Ashraf P.W.5 transmitted the sealed parcel said to contain heroin to the office of Chemical Examiner. Muhammad Ilyas P.W.6 is also a formal witness. Arshad Ali Khokhar Inspector P.W.7 is the complainant and investigated the case.
4. In her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the recovery of narcotics. She appeared as her own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant is not assailing the order of conviction although according to him the raiding party consisted of only the officials and this gives rise to a doubt with respect to the weight of the narcotics recovered. According to him the weight is often exaggerated for making an offence more serious. Any way as the A credibility of the witness is not impeached we are upholding the order of conviction but after hearing all sides and going through the record we are of the view that this is a fit case where the sentence can be modified. Accordingly the sentence is reduced from two years to one undergone and the sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs.20,000 to Rs.10,000 or in lieu thereof to further undergo one month's S.I. With the above modification in the sentence the appeal is disposed of. H.B.T./G-37/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.