TARIQ JAVED and another Versus State
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for the possession of 500 kilograms of poppy, under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence, arguing that they were merely the driver and conductor of the vehicle and that the case property produced in court contained sand rather than the alleged narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of possession of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt despite the discrepancy regarding the case property presented at trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution's case was sufficiently established by the consistent testimony of police witnesses and, crucially, the positive report of the Chemical Examiner confirming that the samples taken at the time of recovery contained poppy. The court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses and that the discrepancy regarding the case property did not invalidate the conviction, as an inquiry into the state of the case property was ongoing and the chemical analysis remained conclusive evidence of the nature of the recovered contraband.
- Can police officials be considered competent witnesses in narcotics cases in the absence of public witnesses?
- Does the production of tampered or incorrect case property in court automatically invalidate a conviction if the Chemical Examiner's report confirms the nature of the seized contraband?
- Is the testimony of police officials sufficient to prove the recovery of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Tariq Javed and Imran Shakeel appellants on conclusion of trial in case F.I.R. No.473, dated 12-11-2001 registered at Police Station Khanqah Dogran were convicted under section 9(c) of C.N.S.A., 1997 and sentenced to five years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000 each in default of payment whereof to further undergo S.I. for six months' each. However, they were given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12-11-2001 at about 11-00 a.m. within the area of Adda Bhatti Goods Khanqah Dogran, Police Station Khanqah Dogran both the appellants along with the co-accused Shahid (since dead) were raided and found in possession of 10 bags of poppy (Toras) each containing of 50 Kgs. total 500 Kgs. One Kg. each was taken out from all the bags and made into sealed parcels for analysis. The remaining poppy in the bags was also sealed and all the parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.B.
3. The challan was submitted in the Court after completion of the investigation. Then the appellants were charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined four P.Ws. The appellants in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and professed innocence. The learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that Tariq Javed appellant was a driver while Imran Shakeel was conductor of the truck, who were not connected with the alleged crime; that during the trial accused Hakeem Muhammad Shahid died; that allegedly 10 bags of poppy containing 50 Kgs. each were recovered from the appellants, but when the case property was opened, the same was only found to be sand, which poles a part about the prosecution story.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes this appeal.
6. After going through the whole prosecution evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find that the P.Ws. had any enmity with the appellants to falsely implicate them in the present case. They remained consistent regarding the time, place and the manner in which the recovery was effected from the appellants. The police officials are as good or bad witnesses as the public witnesses can be and the P.Ws. cannot be disbelieved merely for this reason as it is being generally noticed that the public witnesses do not come forward due to the fear of the desperate accused persons involved in such-like cases. Regarding the case property and inquiry was initiated and at this stage it cannot be held that the material recovered from the appellants was not poppy as according to the prosecution version at the time of recovery of A the total material, ten kilograms material was separated for chemical analysis and according to the report of the Chemical Examiner, all the material contained `post'. A huge quantity of material was recovered from the appellants and there does not appear any reason for falsely planting such a huge material upon the appellants. The appellants cannot be exonerated from the charge merely .on the ground that the case property when was opened in the Court was only containing sand as inquiry is being conducted in this regard. However, according to the report of the Chemical Examiner at least 10 Kgs. material recovered from the appellants out of the total was containing `post'. As such the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. We do not find any reason warranting interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, which is maintained and this appeal is dismissed.
N.H.Q./T-122/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.