2017 P Cr (PLP)

MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.

Muhammad Yasin, appellant, in the appeal as mentioned above, has impugned the punishing judgment handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 01.10.2014, by which having been tried in a case registered vide FIR No. 350 dated 20.05.2014 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station, Sadar, Sialkot sentenced as follows:- "Convicted under section 9-c of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo six months simple imprisonment while extending him the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C."

2. Compendium of the prosecution case as divulged in complaint (Exh.PA) is that on 20.05.2014 at about 04:15 p.m., police posse headed by Kalman Baig, SI captured the appellant from Vario Chowk and got recovered charas weighing 1350-grams P-1 (consists of 13 slabs/littars) along with sale proceed to the tune of Rs.4400/- from a show box carried by the appellant in his right hand, which was made into a sealed parcel vide recovery memo Exh.PB for chemical analysis.

3. During investigation, appellant was found guilty. Thereafter, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was prepared and the same was placed before the learned trial court where pre-framing charge proceedings were culminated, the appellant was indicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to which he pleaded non-culpabilis and claimed trial. Thenceforth the prosecution produced as many as six PWs. On its closure, learned DDPP renounced PW Saleemullah 1254-C as being de-trop and by tendering the report of Chemical Examiner, (Exh.PD) closed the prosecution evidence. Subsequently statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. by putting incriminative material brought against him through evidence and answering to a question, "why this case against you and why the PWs stated against you" replied infra:- "I am innocent. On the eventful day, the police party headed by Kamran Baig S.I/complainant conducted a raid in my house on the asking of Rasheed @ Sheeda who had a civil litigation with my mother, apprehended me from my house and taken away Rs.260000/-. No narcotic substance was recovered from my possession. The alleged recovered charas was planted upon me by Kamran Baig complainant at the behest of Rasheed @ Sheeda and to show his fake efficiency. The PWs deposed me as being subordinate of Kamran Baig SI"

4. The appellant, however, opted to adduce evidence in his defence but not to appear as his own witness as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The appellant produced Mohsin Ali (DW01), Allah Raham (DW02) and Adeela Yasin (DW03) in his defence and by tendering (Exh.DA) closed the defence evidence.

5. The trial proceedings yielded in conviction and sentence of the appellant as mentioned supra. Hence the appeal.

6. Adroitly arguments have been commenced by the learned counsel for the appellant bestirring for the success of appeal by submitting that the place of occurrence was a chowk, hustle bustle of the people remained especially at the time of incident at 04:00 p.m. but non-joining of any private person and prosecution baking upon the police PWs, derides to the system of criminal administration of justice though in absence of any animus in between the police officials/PWs as well as the appellant nevertheless, independent corroboration lacks labyrinthining the prosecution's case involving doubt for acceptance of appeal notwithstanding the whole quantity of alleged recovered charas was transmitted for chemical analysis yet accentuated by the learned counsel to blaze abroad the innocence of the appellant with aplomb branding the whole proceedings apocryphal and it may be unpalatable to upheld the impugned judgment. Withal by perusing the defence evidence, the appellant was trepanned by the opposite party whom he had vended his vehicle and outstanding amount was due upon them but in collusion with the police has involved the appellant, thus, has impetrated for overturning the impugned judgment. It has further been submitted that the appellant has been entangled while being in jail on account of his innocence.

7. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor has attempted to ably assist the Court that the record proves muteness regarding any sought of wroth existed priorly in between the complainant and the appellant whereas association of private persons in the raid proceedings was not mandatory or admonitory whereas the prosecuitonal evidence is consistent to the prove of guilt of the appellant while the DWs are related to the appellant whereas the efforts were undertaken by them investigatively to bring innocence of the appellant on record; the report of the Chemical Examiner is in the positive which is of scientific nature's evidence, thus, has been craved for dismissal of appeal.

8. Heard busily. Record gone through intently.

9. Kamran Baig (PW.01) was present at Waryo Chowk to stake reprobates. Muhammad Yasin appellant as being suspect was checked to his personal search to the recovery of 1350-grams charas along with sale proceeds. The contraband was in slices 39 in number. The whole property was sealed. (PW.02) Muhammad Yasin, other recovery witness corroborated (PW.01) while (PW.04) concluded the investigation. (PW.05) chalked out the FIR (PW.03) kept the property in safe custody in Mal Khana of the police station while (PW.06) transmitted the same to the office of Forensic Science Agency, Lahore, report of the same (Exh.PD) having been noticed in the positive. (PW.03), (PW-5) and (PW.06) were not cross-examined. Remaining PWs were grilled but nothing favourable to the defence. (DW.01) Mehram Ali is step son of the appellant. (DW.02) Allah Raham is reported to be his neighbourer while Adeeba Yasin (DW.03) is better half of the appellant. Without any second thought they are interested witnesses. The Court fails to hold/ believe false implication of the appellant after evaluating in-and-outs of the prosecution case and the evidence led in defence, the Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving its case against the appellant, thus, instant appeal being bereft of reasons stands dismissed. SL/M-25/L Appeal dismissed.