MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 4 kilograms of heroin and 9.3 kilograms of opium. The appellant contended that the prosecution case was flawed due to the dropping of a recovery witness, contradictions in testimony, and prejudice arising from the complainant acting as the Investigating Officer. The Court examined the evidence, noting that the appellant was caught red-handed and that the testimony of the recovery witnesses remained unshaken during cross-examination. The Court held that a conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a single truthful witness and that the non-production of all witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution's case. Furthermore, it ruled that the investigation conducted by a senior officer, in the absence of demonstrated animosity or prejudice, is sufficient. The Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics precludes leniency in sentencing. The appeal was dismissed as meritless.
- Can a conviction be recorded based on the testimony of a single witness in a narcotics case?
- Does the fact that the complainant also acted as the investigating officer automatically prejudice the accused?
- Is the prosecution required to produce every witness present at the time of recovery to prove its case?
- Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics preclude the reduction of a life sentence?
- 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 F.I.R.No,39 dated 20-11-2001 registered under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force, Lahore. The learned Judge, Special Court, C.N.S., Lahore vide his judgment dated 11-11-2003 convicted him under section 9-C of C.N.S.A., 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,4,00,000 or in default thereof to further undergo one year's S.I.
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.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20-11-2001, on spy information, raiding party was constituted. The police along with informer established a secret Nakah 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 overpowered by the members of raiding party. He disclosed his name Muhammad Shaukat. The Tora was checked, out of which, 4 The lies 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 and 300 grams were seized by Muhammad Riaz Samroo. He separated from each The 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. Exh.PB.
2. The accused was charge-sheeted, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 4 P. Ws in all and tendered documentary evidence.
3. 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.
4. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor for A.N.F. 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 matter of sentence in this heinous crime.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Special Prosecutor for A.N.F. And examined the evidence in detail.
7. The appellant was caught red-handed and from his possession, 4 kilograms of heroin, 9 kilograms and 300 grams of opium was recovered. Samples were sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis. The report was positive. Muhammad Asif, A.S.-I. And Muhammad Riaz Sumro, Assistant Director appeared as P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively to support the prosecution case of effecting 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 P.W.4. 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 A.N.F., falsely implicated him which was denied. No particulars of said Nazir Ahmad were given to the P. Ws nor his rank or place of posting was asked for. No evidence was led in defence to prove the plea of false implication at the behest of Nazir Ahmad.
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. P.W.3 is an A.S.I. While P.W.4 is an Assistant Director in A.N.F. 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. P.W.4, Assistant Director in A.N.F. 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 in 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.