LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE

RASHID AZIZ KHAN, C.J.- -- This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 5-4-1997, passed by Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh whereby appellant Liaqat Ali was convicted under section 9-B of the Control of Narcotics Substance Ordinance, 1996 and sentenced to three years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3,000 in default whereof to further undergo R.I. for three months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also given to him.

2. The prosecution case in brief as given in the F.1.R. (Exh.P.A.) was that the first informant Abdul Ghafoor, A.S.-I., received secret information that Liaqat Ali (appellant) was trying to sell heroin at a thoroughfare He was apprehended and from his custody 25 packets of heroin were recovered. On weighing it was 25 grams. Therefore, the present case was registered.

Abdul Ghafoor, A.S.-I., after usual investigation submitted the challan. Prosecution in support of its case produced four witnesses. P.W.1 Abaidullah was Muharrir of the Police Station and he recorded the F.I.R. (Exh.P.A.), kept the sealed parcels in custody in the Malkhana and, thereafter, transmitted them to the concerned office. P.W.2 Mukhtar Ahmad, Constable, was handed over sealed parcels for onward transmission Basharat Ali, A.S.-I. (P.W.3), had witnessed recovery at the instance of Liaqat Ali (appellant). He had also witnessed the recovery memo. Abdul Ghafoor, A.S.-I. (P.W.4), received secret information, arrested the appellant, recovered heroin from him and investigated the case.

3. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence appellant was examined, he refuted the allegation and pleaded innocence. He, however, neither appeared in defence on oath nor produced defence evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case against the appellant is highly doubtful and his conviction cannot be sustained. He argued that the case was investigated by an A.S.-I. which is violation of the law as according to section 19 of the Narcotics Substance Ordinance, 1996 only a Police Officer not below the rank of a S.-I. can investigate. He also argued that since no amount was recovered from the appellant, therefore, the allegation of sale could not be substantiated. It was asserted that no public witness was associated which made the entire proceedings doubtful. Lastly it was contended that the appellant has already undergone more than two years of his sentence and if remissions awarded to him are calculated in these circumstances the sentence already undergone by him would adequately meet the ends of justice. Learned Assistant Advocate-General opposed the contentions.

5. Heard. We have gone through the evidence and are of the view that the witnesses were cross-examined at length but neither any motive for false involvement of the appellant was suggested-to them nor anybody was brought on record to suggest that they were inimical towards the appellant. As far investigation by an A.S.-I. is concerned a specific question was put to the learned counsel for the appellant to indicate any prejudice caused to him and the appellant towards the Court with regard to the application under section 537, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel contended that he would be satisfied if sentence is reduced instead of going into the merits of the case. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has also conceded to that request. In these circumstances we hold that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. Appeal is disposed of in these terms.

H.B.T./L-37/L

Order accordingly.