ISMAIL Versus THE STATE Sardar Muhammad Ishaque , Imam Bakhsh
FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH. J. -- This is an appeal from the judgment of IVth Additional' Sessions Judge, South Karachi, dated 30th September, 1987, whereby the appellant was convicted under Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said Order and Sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven` years, whipping numbering ten stripes and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 (Rs. two thousand), or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months.
2. The charge against him was that on 25-12-1886 at 12-30 p.m he was found in possession of 500 grams of heroin.
3. Ghulam Qadir Soomro, A.E,T.O., Ist Sub-Division Karachi South had found the appellant standing near Race Course Gizri Road. He was held under suspicion in presence of P.W.1 Umar Farooq and one Siraj (nest examined) and .his person was searched. It is alleged that one cloth bag was secured from the pocket of his waistcoat. It contained a plastic Thelli; which was opened and found to contain heroin. It was weighed at the spot and found to be 500 grams. Twenty grams was separated and sealed into a parcel to be sent to the Chemical Examiner, and the remaining quantity was sealed into another parcel. Ghulam Qadir Soomro prepared recovery memo. and also recorded F.I.R. After usual investigation the appellant was sent up for trial.
4. In support of the prosecution case there is evidence of P.W.1 Mashir Umar Farooq and P.W.2 complainant Ghulam Qadir Soomro. They had fully proved the F.I.R. (Exh.4(1) and the recovery 'memo. , (Exh.3/1). Umar Farooq is a witness from the public and- is, therefore, quite independent. No suggestion even was made to this witness that he had enmity with the appellant or that he was in any way connected with complainant Ghulam Qadir Soomro. P.W.2 Ghulam Qadir Soomro also appears to be an independent witness. It was suggested to him in cross-examination that he had implicated the appellant at the instance of one Haji Khudai Gul. The witness replied that he had not even know Haji Khudai Gul.
5. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant has stated that he had supplied blankets worth Rs.1,00,000 to Haji Khudai Gul, who had :refused to make payment and that he had been instrumental in getting him implicated in this case through the Excise Inspector. He further stated that one Abdul Ghaffar was also arrested by the Excise Police from Musafir Khana, near Afghan Mohajir Colony, Sohrab Goth. He has not produced any witness to substantiate the above defence plea. He has examined himself alone on oath under section 340('2), Cr.P.C. in which he stated that he was arrested by the police from Musafir Khana; Sohrab Goth in presence of Abdul Hameed and Talib Masih. These two 'persons would have been the best witnesses to prove that he was arrested from Sohrab Goth not from Delhi Colony. He did not examine any of them. However, in cross-examination to complainant Ghulam Qadir Soomro it was suggested that one Abdul Ghaffar was also arrested from the same place by the complainant. Even this Abdul Ghaffar has not been examined in defence. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the defence plea. From the prosecution evidence we find that the charge under Article 4 of the said Order has been brought home to the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
S.A ./406/F.Sh. Appeal dismissed.