YLR 2006

2006 PLP 1435 (YLR)

IRFAN ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Appeal No.2281 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No.87-J of 2004, decided on 17th October, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Ali Nawaz Chowhan and Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 1435 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Ali Nawaz Chowhan and Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, JJ
Parties IRFAN ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1435 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1435 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Chowhan and Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1435 (YLR) (IRFAN ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

Representation

  • Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Appellant. Tahseen Irfan for the State.
  • Date of hearing: 17th October, 2005.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 9(c)

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, reduction of

Accused had not assailed order of their conviction, but had challenged quantum of sentence being harsh and excessive

Official witnesses had not been impeached and there was no doubt about their testimony

Sentence of 14 years was reduced to 6 years while keeping the sentence of fine intact, in view of recovery effected of indigenous opium and Charas

Accused were given benefit under S.382-B, Cr. P. C.

Judgment & Decree

ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.

Irfan Ali, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2281 of 2003 and Shah Jehan appellant in Criminal Appeal No.87-J of 2004 were convicted under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali in case F.I.R. No.154, dated 25-5-2002 registered at Police Station, Daud Khel, Mianwali and sentenced to 14 years' R.I. each with a fine of Rs.20,000 each or in lieu thereof to further undergo one year's imprisonment. They were given the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Both the appeals are being disposed of through this single judgment.

2. Briefly the prosecution case is that Muhammad Rahtas Khan S.-I./Incharge Computer Check Post on 25-5-2002 stopped Toyota Corolla Car No.1216/B-Charsada in which both the appellants were travelling. The police party checked the aforesaid vehicle and during checking found three packets Charas weighing 3 Kilograms and one packet of opium weighing one kilogram from the driver seat.

3. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses. Muhammad Asghar Moharrir P.W. recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 on the basis of complaint Exh. P. A. He also deposed about the safe custody of the sealed parcels containing Charas and opium in the Malkhana of the Police Station. Muhammad Asghar Constable, P.W.2 deposed about the proclamation issued against Muhammad Arshad Ali accused. Ijaz Ahmad S.-I., P.W.3, arrested Arshad Hussain, accused. Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, P.W.4 conducted the investigation in this case. Muhammad Rahtas Khan, S.-I., P.W.5 is the complainant, who reiterated the contents of the F.I.R. Lal Khan constable, P.W.6, transmitted the sealed parcels said to contain Charas and opium to the office of Chemical Examiner. Mushtaq Ahmad, Head Constable, P.W.7 is the witness of recovery.

4. The accused were examined undersection 342, Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations and recovery of narcotics. They did not opt to appear as their own witnesses under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. but produced Ghulam Qasim D.W.1, Amir Saeed D.W.2, Khurshid Sultan, D.W.3 and Malik Rehman, D.W.4 to prove their innocence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has not assailed the order of conviction but has rather, impugned the quantum of sentence by stating that this was harsh and excessive. According to the learned counsel in similar cases the quantum of sentence given by the Courts elsewhere, particularly in N.-W.F.P. was far less.

6. We also find that the official witnesses have not been impeached and we attach no doubt with their testimony and uphold the order of conviction. But keeping in view the recovery effected of indigenous opium and Charas, we reduce the sentence from 14 years to 6 years while keeping the sentence of fine intact. The appellants are given the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./I-16/L Order accordingly.