MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus State
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J .--Muhammad Nawaz appellant was convicted under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh vide judgment, dated 6-7-2002 in case F.I.R. No.354, dated 6-11-1997 registered at Police Station Rajana District Toba Tek Singh and sentenced to three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000 in default whereof to further undergo R.I. for one year. He was given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on a secret information Babar Anwaar S.-I. along with other police officials apprehended Muhammad Nawaz and on his personal search 130 grams of heroin wrapped in a Khaki envelope was recovered from the right side pocket of his shirt along with Rs.200 of the denomination of Rs.50 each.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as four prosecution witnesses whereas Naseem Bari 23/C appeared as C.W.1. Ghulam Nabi 47/C P.W. transmitted the sealed parcel said to contain heroin to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. Tanvir Ahmad 341/C P.W.2 and Shaukat Ali constable No.91 P.W.4 are the witnesses of recovery. Muhammad Ashraf A.S-I. P. W.3 reiterated the contents of the F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 recorded on his statement Exh. P. B. Naseem Bari 23/C.W. 1 deposed about the service of summons issued for appearance of Babar Anwar P.W. The learned ADA after tendering in evidence report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.D. and its forwarding letter Exh.P.D./1 closed the case for prosecution. The accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied all the allegations and recovery of heroin by introducing a story that about two months prior to the present occurrence said Babar Anwar S.-I. took Rs.5000 from him for registration of a case about the theft of his goat but he did not register the case. The appellant made an application to the S.P. who got returned Rs.5000 to the appellant from Babar Anwar. He also produced Ghulam Abbas D.W.1 in his defence.
4. The following excerpts from the statement of Tanvir Ahmad Constable (P.W.2) are reproduced below:---
"I do not know if the accused had filed application against Babar Anwar S.-I. and D.S.P. Head-quarters Toba Tek Singh had conducted inquiry against him. I do not know if any officer takes bribe because it is not told to the subordinate. I do not know that D.S.P. directed Babar Anwar to return Rs.5000 to the accused which he allegedly received from him."
"It is correct that heroin P.1 produced in the Court is now wrapped in a white cloth."
"It is correct that D.S.P. Toba Tek Singh had also conducted the investigation of this case. It was transferred on the application of the accused who had stated that a false case had been registered against him. I do not know if D.S.P. had differed with the finding of Babar Anwar S.-I."
We also find that the Investigating Officer Babar Anwar S.-I. against whom aforementioned allegations were made did not appear in the witness-box probably for face saving. Muhammad Ashraf A.S-I. appeared to corroborate the statement of Tanvir Ahmad Constable along with Shaukat Ali Constable (P.W.4).
5. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant repeated what he had asked during the cross-examination of Tanvir Ahmad. Ghulam Abbas (D.W.1) appeared to support his version about false implication and planting of the heroin under reference.
6. Since the Sub-Inspector did not appear to controvert what was alleged by the appellant and the possibility that the quantity of heroin so recovered could be planted and while it is in the common knowledge that such planting is being done by the police, we accept this appeal, set aside the order of conviction and acquit the appellant of the charge.
N.H.Q./M-324/L Appeal accepted.