GHULAM ZOHRA alias RANI vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, recorded by the Special Court CNS, Islamabad, whereby she was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question pertained to the sustainability of the conviction and the quantum of sentence based on the evidence presented and the composition of the raiding party. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction as the credibility of the prosecution witnesses remained unimpeached, but modified the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and reduced the fine accordingly. The key principle laid down is that while police-only raiding parties may warrant careful scrutiny regarding the exact weight of narcotics, an unchallenged and credible witness testimony is sufficient to sustain a narcotics conviction, though appellate courts retain the discretion to mitigate sentences under appropriate circumstances.
- Can a narcotics conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials forming the raiding party?
- Whether appellate courts can reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in a narcotics case?
- Does the absence of private witnesses in a raiding party render the recovery of narcotics doubtful in all circumstances?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN J.--- Ghulam Zohra alias Rani appellant was convicted under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the learned Judge Special Court CNS, Islamabad vide judgment dated 21-1-2004 in case F.I.R. No.347 dated 9-8-2000 registered at Police Station Industrial Area Islamabad and sentenced to two years R.I. With a fine of Rs.20,000 or in lieu thereof to further undergo three months' S.I. She Was given the benefit under .Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 9-8-2000 Arshad Ali Khokhar Inspector CIA along with other police officials on a spy information apprehended the appellant. .3. The prosecution to prove its case examined Muhammad Ashraf as P.W.1 who simply took the complaint to the police station for registration of the case. Parveen Akhtar Lady constable P.W.2., Shahid Nawaz constable P.W.3 and Munir Ahmad, S.-I., P.W.4 are the witnesses of recovery.
Muhammad Ashraf P.W.5 transmitted the sealed parcel said to contain heroin to the office of Chemical Examiner. Muhammad Ilyas P.W.6 is also a formal witness. Arshad Ali Khokhar Inspector P.W.7 is the complainant and investigated the case.
4. In her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the recovery of narcotics. She appeared as her own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant is not assailing the order of conviction although according to him the raiding party consisted of only the officials and this gives rise to a doubt with respect to the weight of the narcotics recovered. According to him the weight is often exaggerated for making an offence more serious. Any way as the A credibility of the witness is not impeached we are upholding the order of conviction but after hearing all sides and going through the record we are of the view that this is a fit case where the Sentence can bemodified. Accordingly the sentence is reduced from two years to one undergone and the sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs.20,000 to Rs.10,000 or in lieu thereof to further undergo one month's S.I. With the above modification in the sentence the appeal is disposed of.