2006SCMR304 (PLP)

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.

Petitioner, Ehsanullah, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 8-4-2004 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2002 filed by him was dismissed and his conviction under section 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentence of imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.50,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo R.I. for one year awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad were maintained. However, the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him.

2. Precisely, stated that the allegation against the petitioner was that on 29-5-2000 at about 12-05 p.m. a raiding party consisting of police and Excise Department officials raided the house of the petitioner situated at Muhallah Mustafa Abad, Street No.4 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sargodha Road, petitioner was apprehended and on his pointation got recovered a blue plastic bag lying inside store near the Refrigerator from his house. On search, 10 packets of contraband opium were recovered. On weighing 9 packets of 2/2 Kgs. Each and one packet of 1 Kg. in all 19 Kgs. of opium were recovered. Out of which 10 grams opium was separated from each packet and sealed the same for chemical analysis.

3. After usual investigation, the petitioner was sent up to face trial under section 6/9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. At trial, the prosecution examined in all six witnesses namely Ali Hussain A.S.-I. P.W.1, Muhammad Aslam 1060/HC P.W.2, Tariq Rasheed F.C. P.W.3, Khalid Manan Ex.C. P.W.4, Ikramul Haq, AETO P.W.5 and Khurram Saeed, S.-I./S.H.O. P.W.6.

4. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent. He pleaded that he was apprehended in the case due to enmity between his father-in-law Sardar Muhammad Chatta and Abdur Rehman Chatta, Excise Inspector. The petitioner did not appear to record his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, he produced two witnesses in his defence namely Liaqat Ali D.W.1 and Pervaiz Iqbal D.W.2.

5. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

6. We have heard Mr. Tariq Bilal learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mehmood Ahmed Sheikh, learned counsel for the State at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to enmity of his father-in-law with Abdur Rehman Chatta, Excise Inspector. According to him, all the witnesses are police and excise officials and the case was registered against him at the connivance of Abdur Rehman Chatta, Excise Inspector due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show us from the record the nature of enmity between the Excise Inspector and Sardar Muhammad Chatta, the petitioner's father-in-law.

8. On the contrary, the prosecution has produced natural and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses who were cross-examined at length but nothing fruitful came in favour of the petitioner. A huge quantity of 19 kilograms was recovered from the house of the petitioner at his pointation which in ordinary circumstance cannot be planted. Recovery of such a huge quantity itself is sufficient to base conviction specially when neither nature of enmity is disclosed nor any proof of false implication is produced by petitioner in his defence. His non-examination on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. further shows that he had nothing to say in his defence. It is not a case of misreading, non-reading or misappreciation of evidence. No case is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings of two Courts below. The petition is also barred by time for 49 days for which no plausible explanation has been offered.

9. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed on merits as well as on the point of limitation. N.H.Q./E-30/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.