AMANAT ALI vs THE STATE

' RUSTAM ALI MALIK, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-9-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court for Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Kasur whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under section 9 (b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and was sentenced to five years' R.I. Along with a fine of Rs,3,000. It was directed that in case of non-payment of fine, he will have to undergo further R.I. For two months.

2. The case against the accused/ appellant is based on F.I.R. No,495/2000 registered on 2-8-2000 in P.S Saddar, Kasur under section 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The formal F.I.R.

Exh.P.W.4/27 was registered on the basis of complaint sent by Muhammad Rafique, A.S-I. Police Station Saddar, Kasur. According to the F.I.R. a raiding party which was headed by the complainant had received a secret information and had conducted a raid. On seeing the police party, the accused ran away but slipped and a shopper containing 145 grams of charas and heroin weighing 8 grams (which was in a separate shopper) fell there while the accused managed to escape. 10 grams of charas and one gram of heroin was separated as specimen for chemical analysis and the case was registered against the accused.

3. As a result of investigation, the challan was submitted against the accused. The accused was formally charged by the learned trial Court on 11-5-2001 and to which he pleaded not guilty and the prosecution was thus asked to produce its evidence.

4. In this case the prosecution has examined as many as six P.Ws. Of them, P.W.1 Ghulam Hussain, Head Constable and P.W.5 Muhammad Rafique Abid, A.S-I. Were members of the raiding party who deposed on the same lines as indicated in the F.I.R.

5. P.W.6 Syed Zahid Hussain Shah, S.-I. Had partly investigated the case. The report of the Chemical Examiner was tendered in the prosecution evidence as Exh. P.A.

6. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances. In answer to the question as to why this case against him and why the P.Ws. Had deposed against him, he replied that the case had been planted on him with the mala fide intention by the complainant after concocting a false story and that nothing was recovered from him and there was no evidence regarding the sale of narcotics (by him). In answer to the next question i.e, question No,4, he stated that he is innocent (in this case) and that actually he had a dispute with the Excise Inspector namely Azhar Hussain relating to the over-assessment of his property tax and on account of which he had been booked in this case at the instance of the said Excise Inspector with the connivance of police. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence nor did he make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr. P. C .

7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

8. There is no such inconsistency or contradiction in the prosecution evidence which may be sufficient to strike down the prosecution story from its very foundation. P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 have fully proved the story regarding conducting of raid and in the course of which 145 grams of charas and 8 grams heroin were recovered while the accused/appellant had managed to escape from the spot. The police officials in such like cases are as good witnesses as members of the general public. The accused/appellant has not been able to explain as to what enmity the I.0 had with him so as to falsely implicate him in this case. There is no evidence on record to the effect as to whether the accused/appellant has any property at all, therefore the story that he had a dispute with the Excise Inspector regarding the assessment of his property tax does not inspire confidence.

It is unbelievable that the police would, involve an innocent person in a case of this nature in connivance with the Excise Inspector. The defence plea of the accused does not inspire confidence at all. The report of Chemical Examiner is also positive.

9. Under the circumstance, we are inclined to uphold the conviction recorded against the accused by the learned trial Court. However, during the arguments on this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he would be satisfied in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused in this case is further reduced under the peculiar circumstances of this case. After hearing the arguments on this point of the learned counsel for the appellant and also of the learned counsel for the State, we are inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused by the learned trial Court, under the peculiar B circumstances of this case and in the interest of safe administration of justice (as the accused/appellant had not been apprehended at the spot).

10. In view of what has been stated above, we uphold the conviction recorded against the accused by the learned trial Court. But we reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused in this case to that already undergone by him. However, we uphold the sentence of payment of fine of Rs,3,000. In case of non-payment of fine, the will undergo further R.I. For two months.

11. With the above modification in the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.