2008 PLP 1211 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.

Having been involved in case F.I.R. No.166198, dated 1-4-1998 registered under Articles 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with sections 6/9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at police station Iqbal Town, Lahore, the appellant Muhammad Rafique son of Khushi Muhammad, Caste Arian, resident of Karmanwala, Police Station Sadar, District Okara, was convicted under section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. He was also burdened with a fine of rupees one lac in default whereof to further undergo R.I. for six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also given to him.

2. Succinctly, the prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. is that D.S.P. Iqbal Town received an information that a gang dealing in drug trafficking is operating in the area of Iqbal Town. On the information of the informer, the D,S.P., constituted a raiding party headed by Abdul Ghaffar, A. S-L including Muhammad Ashfaq, Muhammad Ali and Parvez Iqbal constables whereupon a picket was organized at Scheme More and on the pointation of informer, Muhammad Rafique son of Khushi Muhammad (present appellant), was apprehended along with a bag in his right hand. On search of the bag 10 packets of "Charas" weighing 1 k. g. each one packet of "opium" weighing 4 k.g. was recovered. From each packet of "Charas" 25 grams each and from the packet of "opium" 50 grams of "opium", was separated for sample purposes. The same were sealed into parcels. During the investigation, the accused/appellant was found guilty and was challand to face trial. Formal charge was framed under sections 6/9 of C. N. S. A. 1997 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. At trial the prosecution examined six witnesses in all Muhammad Arif, HC, (P.W.1) kept the case property intact in his possession P.W.2 Muhammad Ali, Constable, and Abdul Ghaffar, A. S-I. (P.W.4) while on picket apprehended the appellant and recovered contrabands from him, vide recovery memo., Exh.P.A. Riaz Ahmed, HC, P.W.3 deposited two sealed parcels in the office of the chemical examiner, Muhammad Bashir, Sub-Inspector (P.W.5), investigated the case Muhammad Azhar Saqib, S-I., (P. W.6) received complaint Exh. P. B and registered formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1. The learned Special Prosecutor tendered the report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.C. and Exh. P.D. and closed the case of prosecution. Thereafter statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused did not produce any evidence in defence but appeated in the witness-box for recording his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He denied the allegation against him and pleaded innocence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the material aspects and facts of the case. The Court has misread and non-read the evidence. There are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the P.Ws. Further contended that the raid was conducted by A. S-I. which is not permissible under the law. The P.W.5/Investigating Officer, has denied the site plan of the place of recovery as such recovery is fake.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned counsel for the State defended the impugned judgment by vehemently contending that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused was caught red-handed recovery of contrabands has been proved as the report of the Chemical Examiner is positive.

6. We have perused the record and considered the arguments propounded by the learned counsel for the parties. On a source report a raiding party was constituted and picket was formed at Scheme Mor, Lahore, where the accused/ appellant was nabbed at the spot along with a bag containing "Charas" and "opium". The factum of recovery of huge quantity of contraband was proved by Abdul Ghaffar, (P.W.4), Muhammad Ali, Constable, (P.W.2) is the recovery witness, who signed the recovery memo. Exh.P.A. The evidence of both the P.Ws. against the accused was convincing and no justification existed to falsely involve the accused in a case of recovery of heavy quantity of narcotics. All the P.Ws. were put to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but they withstood the test on all material and relevant aspects and nothing favourable to the accused could be elicited from the prosecution witnesses so as to cause dent in prosecution case. The report of Chemical Analyst Exh.P.C. and Exh.P.D. in respect of substance was also positive ,and the accused/appellant has not controverted the same. There is no discrepancy. Of course all the witnesses in this case are police officials, but they are as good witnesses as private persons. Nothing has been brought on record which may tend to show any enmity, grudge or mala fide of the police officials against the appellant tend to show any enmity, grudge or mala fide of the police officials against the appellant. The accused stated hi his statement that he had intimacy with one Ghazi Khan, who was his neighbour and he was pursuing his case, the police officials demanded money from him and on his refusal to grease their palm, he was roped falsely in this case. This defence plea appears to be merely hollow. The accused/appellant has not been able to explain his position about being in possession of heavy quantity of contrabands at the time of occurrence and his mere assertion of having been falsely charged without a positive attempt to substantiate the same, was of no consequence. No proper defence has been advanced by the accused. The prosecution having proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against him could not be interfered in appeal especially when accused has failed to point out any illegality by way of misreading or non-reading of evidence by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the raid conducted by the A.S-I. was not permissible does not hold water. The A. S-I. under the order of the D.S.P., organized picket at Scheme More, apprehended the appellant and recovered huge quantity of contrabands from him and immediately thereafter the Sub-Inspector reached the spot and commenced the investigation. The accused might have fled away if the raiding party reached the spot with little delay. Even otherwise, admittedly the investigation was conducted by the Sub-Inspector.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we see no infirmity or flaw in the impugned judgment and find no ground or justification warranting our interference in the sentence passed by the trial Court. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-330/L Appeal dismissed.