RIAZ AHMAD alias Raju vs THE STATE

' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.-Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 6-6-2002, whereby Criminal Appeal No,192 of 2001 was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench.

2. Facts briefly are that F.I.R. No,110 of 2000 was got registered at the instance of Muhammad Yousaf, S.-I./S.H.O., Police Station City, Bahawalnagar regarding the conduct of, the raid and arrest of the petitioner who was carrying 5 Kilograms of Charas in a shopper bag. After investigation, challan was submitted. The prosecution in order to establish its case produced six witnesses. When the petitioner was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., he pleaded his innocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated because of enmity of his sister with the then S.H.O. And one S.-I. The learned trial Judge after thrashing the entire evidence through his judgment dated 10-7-2001 found the petitioner guilty and convicted him under section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, sentencing him to 10 years with a fine of Rs,25,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months further R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also accorded to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No,192 of 2001, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel that the conviction has simply been recorded on the testimony of the police officials who, according to him, sided with their official version. They simply toed the line taken up by the complainant i.e, the police officials. It has further been argued that the blanket under which the shopper was allegedly kept had not been taken into possession.

4. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. The argument of the learned counsel that the testimony of police officials does not inspire confidence is totally devoid of any force. Nothing has been brought on record that any of the witnesses was having any malice against the petitioner. The police officials are as good witnesses as private persons of the society. The testimony of the prosecution cannot be thrown over board simply on the ground that it has come from the police officials.

5. The other argument that the blanket was not taken into possession is also without any substance. It was not a case property and secondly the occurrence had taken place in the month of February and the petitioner could not be left without blanket in a cold weather. The case property in this case was Charas which had been recovered and the report of the chemical examiner in this regard was of positive nature.

6. Resultantly, for what has been discussed above, criminal petition is dismissed and leave declined.