Aijaz Ali Rajpar vs The State
The petitioner was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of 1920 grams of cannabis and sentenced to four years and six months of imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the High Court of Sindh after a remand for re-examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the conviction alleging a fake recovery foisted by police due to previous animosity and alternatively sought a reduction of sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the narcotics recovery, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and the justification for reducing the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the considerable quantity of contraband ruled out false imposition, the testimonies of the recovery witnesses were consistent and reliable, and the forensic report clinched the indictment. The Court declined leave to appeal and refused to reduce the sentence, establishing that consistent prosecution evidence regarding a substantial contraband recovery sustains a narcotics conviction.
- Does the recovery of a considerable quantity of contraband rule out its false imposition by police?
- Whether unblemished and consistent testimonies of recovery witnesses are sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can an unproved allegation of police animosity undermine the preponderance of prosecution evidence in a narcotics case?
- Is a prisoner entitled to a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone based on remissions when the sentence is otherwise conscionable?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J. Surprised by a contingent of Mitiari police with 1920 grams cannabis, the petitioner was sent to face trial before a learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CNS) at Hyderabad; he claimed trial that resulted into his conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vide judgment dated 12.11.2019; he was sentenced to 4-years 6-months with a direction for payment of fine. The High Court of Sindh first remanded the case for petitioner 's re-examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, however , the trial Court again proceeded to convict him with the same quantum of sentence vide judgment dated 10.08.2020, upheld vide impugned judgment dated 27.08.2020, vires whereof, are being assailed on a number of grounds; the bottom line is that a fake recovery was foisted upon the petitioner to settle a previous score with him as his brother had moved an application under section 491 of the Code ibid against the local police, shortly before his unjustified arrest. Without opting to be his own witness to disprove the charge, the petitioner tendered order dated 17.11.2018 purportedly issued by an Addl. Sessions Judge on a motion made by his brother Muhammad Iqbal; the petition was dismissed vide order of even date as a Bailif f/Raid Commissioner deputed by the Court reported the accusation as factually incorrect. The learned counsel alternately argued for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone as, according to him, after inclusion of remissions, the petitioner has served out a substantial portion of his sentence. The learned Law Officer has, however , defended the impugned judgment and also opposed reduction in sentence on the ground of its being within the remit of law .
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. A considerable quantity of the contraband rules out false imposition; reliance upon some documents suggesting an antedated botched attempt in the Court of Session, without entry in the witness-box, does not by itself support the hypothesis of suggested animosity with the police nor does it undermine the preponderance of prosecution evidence, constituting a continuous chain of events that inspiringly framed the petitioner with the charge. Both the recovery witnesses, namely , Qadir Bukhsh (PW-1) and Ali Ahmed, ASI (PW-2) have not even been suggested any past rancor harbored by the raiding party . The trial Judge, after twice appraising the evidence found the witnesses in a unison, a view confirmed by the High Court. Upon our own examination, we have found the witnesses straightforward and consistent, bracing the cross-examination without any embarrassment. Safe custody and transmission of samples accompanied by a positive forensic report clinched the indictment. We have also considered the alternate plea of reduction in the sentence; on account of actual period spent in the prison, do not feel persuaded to grant the request. Scales being in balance with a wage conscionable in circumstances, petition fails; leave declined.