MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT vs STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of a large quantity of narcotics comprising four kilograms of heroin and nine kilograms and 300 grams of opium, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine. The core legal questions involve whether contradictions among witnesses, the dropping of a recovery witness, and the fact that the complainant acted as the investigating officer vitiated the conviction and caused prejudice to the accused. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses remained unshaken, that conviction can validly rest on the statement of a single truthful witness, and that no prejudice was demonstrated where a senior officer conducted a valid raid and recovery of a massive quantity of narcotics. The key principle laid down is that the recovery of a huge quantity of contraband from a red-handed accused rules out false planting, and the fact that the complainant is also the investigator does not vitiate the proceedings unless specific prejudice is established.
- Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained on the testimony of police witnesses when a recovery witness is dropped?
- Does the fact that the complainant acted as the investigating officer vitiate the trial and cause prejudice to the accused?
- Whether the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics rules out the possibility of false implication or planting?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J.--Muhammad Shaukat appellant was tried in case FIR No, 39 dated 21.11.2001 registered under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Anti Narcotics Force, Lahore. The learned Judge, Special Court, CNS, Lahore vide his judgment dated 11.11.2003 convicted him under Section 9-C of CNSA 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs, 4,00,000/- or in-default thereof to further undergo to one year SI. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.. was given to him. The convict-appellant has filed the instant appeal against his conviction and sentence.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.11.2001, on spy information, raiding party was constituted. The police alongwith informer established a secret Nikah at about 12.30 a.m. A person came on motorcycle with Tora on the petrol tank of motorcycle, who was encircled on the pointation of informer and over-powered by the members of raiding party. He disclosed his name Muhammad Shaukat. The Tora was checked, out of which, 4 Thelies containing heroin and opium wrapped in black and white shopping bags were recovered. Each Theli of heroin weighed one Kilogram. In all 4 Kilograms heroin and opium weighing 9 Kilograms 300 grams were seized by Muhammad Riaz Samroo. He separated from each Theli 5 grams of heroin and 10 grams from opium as sample and prepared four sealed parcels of sample of heroin and one sealed parcel of sample of opium for chemical analysis. He also took into possession the Motorcycle No, LXH-750 Kawasaki vide memo Ex. PB.
3. The accused was charged sheeted, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 4 PWs in all and tendered documentary evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that one of the recovery witness has been dropped without any reason; that there is contradiction between the witnesses on material points and that the complainant was the I.O. which caused prejudice to the appellant.
5. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor for ANF supported the impugned judgment and argued that huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from the possession of appellant and thus, he is not entitled to any indulgence even in the manner of sentence in this heinous crime.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Special Prosecutor for ANF and examined the evidence in detail.
7. The appellant was caught red handed and from his possession, 4 kilograms of hereoin, 9 kilograms and 300 grams of opium was recovered. Samples were sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis. The report was positive. Muhammad Asif, ASI and Muhammad Riaz Sumro, Assistant Director appeared as PW3 and PW4 respectively to support the prosecution case of affecting recovery from the person of appellant. Both have been cross-examined at length but their testimony was not shaken in cross-examination. Raid was conducted by PW4. He recorded the statements of recovery witnesses and prepared the site plan. A bare suggestion was given to the prosecution witnesses that, Nazir Ahmad, an employee of ANF, falsely implicated him which was denied. No particulars of said Nazir Ahmad were given to the PWs nor his rank or place of posting was asked for. No evidence was led in defehce to prove the plea of false implication at the behest of Nazir Ahmed.
8. Conviction can be recorded on the statement of one witness, if his statement is truthful. There is no requirement of law that all the witnesses, who witnessed the recovery are to be produced in court PW3 is an ASI while PW4 is an Assistant Director in ANF. Both witnessed the recovery and signed the recovery memo. Huge quantity has been recovered; hence question of false implication by planting the narcotics is ruled out. PW-4, Assistant Director in ANF conducted the raid. He prepared the recovery memo and recorded statement of recovery witnesses. He also conducted investigation. In cases of this nature when a person is caught red handed and huge quantity is recovered, what more investigation was required. A senior officer conducted the investigation who has no ill will or animosity to the appellant. He also failed to show what prejudice has been caused to him.
9. Appellant was in possession of quantity more than 10 kilograms; hence is not entitled to reduction is sentence, as .prayed for by his learned counsel, while concluding his arguments.
10. Prosecution has fully .proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any ground for interference.
11. For what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merit which is hereby dismissed.