TAHIR MAJEED Versus THE STATE
Appellant Tahir Majeed was travelling in 18‑Down Abbaseen Express on 7‑1‑1994. At 18‑30 hours the train reached Peshawar Cantt. Railway Station. A.S.I., Gohar Rehman of Police Station, Railways, Peshawar Cantt. recovered a shopping bag lying on the floor of the compartment between the legs of the appellant who was sitting on the single seat where under the shopping bag was lying. The said bag contained 2000 grams of opium and 250 grams of Charas. The complainant A.S.I. took into possession the shopping bag and separated 10 grams from the opium and 5 grams from the Charas as sample for chemical analysis and prepared separate parcels. He also apprehended the appellant and sent written complaint to Police Station, Railways, Peshawar Cantt. for registration of the case.
2. The appellant was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 by Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar but he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Four witnesses were examined for the prosecution on behalf of the State and the appellant made a deposition under section 342, Cr.P.C. but he neither made any deposition on oath nor he produced any ‑ defence witness.
4. After the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Article 3 of the Prohibition Order and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years to suffer 5 stripes and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000, or in default to further under rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The convict has challenged his conviction and sentence by the appeal in hand.
5. The recovery of the aforesaid narcotics was proved by P.W.3, A.S.I., Gohar Rehman and the recovery memo. was witnessed by P.W.2, F.C. Waheed Jan‑ The appellant made the following statement in his deposition under section 342, Cr.P.C.:‑‑
"It is all incorrect. I was sitting in the railway compartment and when the police entered into the said compartment, they found a shopping bag beneath the seat for which the police started inquiry as to who was the owner of the bag. I alongwith 3/4 other persons sitting in the said compartment were got down and were made to sit in a room at the platform. At late Kuftanvela the police demanded money from me with a promise that I shall be let off but I disclosed my identity that I was also a Police Constable of Punjab Police and had no money to give them. Police challaned me falsely and for ulterior motive in this case. The shopping bag neither belonged to me which contained the alleged narcotics, nor it was recovered from my possession. I am innocent and have falsely been involved in this case."
He further stated that he was innocent and falsely charged and that he had come to Peshawar to see his relatives Ashiq Ali Sooja in Shahin Camp, Peshawar Cantt. and was returning back to his home when the Police deboarded him from the train and due to mala fide and ulterior motive the police, involved him falsely in the present case.
6. It shall thus be seen that the appellant had conceded that shopping bag containing narcotics was recovered from under the single seat occupied by him. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the narcotics belonged to some one else who had put it under that seat and the applicant could not be held guilty for transporting the same. He also contended that F.C. Fanoos Khan had recovered the shopping bag but he had not been produced as a witness and he could not cross‑examine the said witness. Since the appellant had admitted the recovery of the shopping bag from under the single seat which was occupied by him, the only question is whether the appellant could be held guilty for transporting the same. It is to be noted that the appellant was a police man, employed in the Punjab Police. In that capacity he might be aware that the shopping bag lying under the seat occupied by him may contain some contraband and he should remove it to some other place or he could have occupied some other seat. Such would be a normal course of action by a police man travelling in train, although such reasonable exercise could not be expected from a lay man. The appellant also failed to show any animosity against the complainant and the witnesses who had deposed against him. It had also come in evidence that the shopping bag was lying in between the legs of the appellant when it was recovered and his admission of the recovery of the same from under the seat occupied by him would clearly corroborate the prosecution version.
7. After going through the entire record of the case and perusing the defence version and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that the State had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond any doubt whatsoever. He was a police man and very well‑knew the consequences of his guilt. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded on 24‑10‑1994 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar are maintained.
N.H.Q./962/FSC ???????
Appeal dismissed.