MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State

1. BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.--- This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No.177-J of 2000 and Crl. Appeal No.247-J of 2000 as the occurrence took place in the same transaction and the appellant in both the cases is one and the same person.

2. Muhammad Akram son of Muhammad Aalam has challenged judgment, dated 3-6-2000 passed by Judge, Special Court CNSA, Gujranwala whereby in case F. I. R. No. 582/98, dated 11-10-1998 under section 9(b) CNSA, 1997 he was convicted and sentenced to 5 years' R.I with fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to undergo one year's R.I. and in F.I.R. No.583/98 under section 9(c) CNSA, 1997 he was convicted and sentenced to 14 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,00,000 or in default thereof to undergo five years' R.I., both registered at P.S. Baghbanpura, Gujranwala. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., was however extended in his favour in both the cases. Sentence in both the cases was ordered to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 11-10-1998 Faqir Ullah, S.-I. along with other police officials was present on `Khota puli' for general checking of drug pushers when he received secret information that Muhammad Akram, appellant was selling charas in lana (gala) Kumharanwala. On which raiding party was formed and raid was conducted and the appellant was apprehended who was holding a black shopper containing 1 Kg. Charas and an amount of Rs.1140 was recovered from his possession and a case vide F.I.R. No.582 of 1998 was got registered. During the investigation of this case, the appellant made disclosure and led to the recovery of9 Kg opium and one Kg Charas from his residential house, on which, a separate case vide F.I.R. No.583/98 was registered on 11-10-1998. The opium P.1 and Charas P.2 were taken into possession through memo. Exh. P. A.

4. After completion of the investigation challan against the accused/appellant was submitted. Separate trials in both the cases were held.

5. During the trial the prosecution examined Muhammad Ayyub, FC as P.W. 1 who collected two sealed parcels and transmitted the same to the office of Chemical Examiner. P.W.2 Qudrat Ullah, A.S-I. was member of the raiding party and proved the prosecution story. Faqir Ullah, S.-I. P.W.3 conducted the raid and investigated the case. P.W.4 Abdul Majeed, S.-I. recorded the formal F.I.R.

6. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in both the cases and in reply to question as to why the case against him and the P.Ws. deposed against him he stated as under:---

7. "Prior to the prosecution of this case, Amanat Ali, Constable and Imtiaz Yasin, Constable purchased chicken on credit from my shop. These two police officials also borrowed rather extorted money from myself. I made applications time and again to the S.S.P. Gujranwala against the highhanded ness of the police officials. These two police officials in connivance with others got me involved in false cases."

8. He also produced Muhammad Qasim, as D.W.1 and Muhammad Inayat as P.W.2 in his defence.

9. The trial culminated into conviction of the appellant as mentioned above. Hence these appeals.

10. Leaned counsel for the appellant-has argued that he would not challenge the conviction provided the sentence is reduced adequately as the appellant was first offender and younger man and the narcotics recovered was Charas and opium which is comparatively less dangerous.

11. The appeals have been opposed by learned counsel for the State who has supported the impugned judgments.

12. Heard. Record perused.

13. The appellant was apprehended in the Bazaar by the police and from his personal search Charas was recovered and there is no ill-will or previous enmity on the part of the police for false implication. During the investigation of first case registered vide F.I.R. No.582/98 the appellant made disclosure and led to the recovery of opium and Charas from his residential house which was also taken into possession and a separate case was registered. The police officials are as good witnesses as the ordinary people and such a huge quantity of narcotics cannot be planted by the police officials. In view of the above, learned counsel for the appellant is justified in not challenging the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant.

14. As far as sentence is concerned, it is correct that the appellant is first offender and narcotics were recovered from him is less dangerous, therefore, while maintaining the conviction we reduce the sentence to 8 years R.I., which will meet the ends of justice. The sentence shall run concurrently as directed by the trial Court.

15. However, the sentence of fine is maintained but the sentence in default thereof 'is reduced to one year R.I. in each case. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be available to the appellant in each case. The appeals are dismissed with the above modification.

16. N.H.Q./M-376/L Sentence reduced.