NOUBAHAR vs THE STATE
The petitioner was intercepted at Quaid-e-Azam Airport, Karachi, while attempting to board a flight to Kuala Lumpur, and was found in possession of 1.5 kilograms of brown heroin concealed in his suitcase. A case was registered, and upon trial, the petitioner was convicted under the Customs Act 1969 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the testimony of official witnesses without corroboration from independent witnesses, and whether minor contradictions vitiate the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was well-founded, ruling that the lack of independent witnesses is not fatal when the accused is caught red-handed at the spot, and that only material contradictions affecting inculpatory evidence warrant consideration. The petition was consequently dismissed.
- Whether the absence of independent witnesses is fatal to a prosecution case where the accused is caught red-handed?
- Do minor contradictions in the statements of official witnesses vitiate a criminal conviction?
- Whether the testimony of customs officials alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Customs Act 1969?
- Section 171, Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1)(8), Customs Act 1969
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner who was travelling to Kaulalumpur by Malayasian Airlines flight No,MH-191 was intercepted at Quaid-e-Azam Airport, Karachi by Customs sepoy P.W. Akhtar Farooq. He was found to be in possession of 1.5 Kgs. Of brown heroin powder which had been concealed in false bottom of the former's suit-case. The contraband was seized under a Mashirnama prepared on the spot by Preventive Officer P.W. Irfan Ahmad and a notice under section 171 of the Customs Act was also served upon the petitioner. Investigation in the case was subsequently handed over to Imran Tahir Qureshi and challan under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act was submitted to the trial Court.
2. The case of the prosecution was fully supported by the Investigating Officer, P. W. Irfan Ahmad and sepoy Akhtar Farooq and the charge against the petitioner being fully sustained by their evidence, the petitioner was convicted under the said sections of the Customs Act and sentenced to R.I. For three years and to pay a fine of Rs,50,000. In default of payment of fine the petitioner was further sentenced to undergo R.I. For six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, allowed to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner filed his appeal before the learned Customs Judge in the High Court who upheld the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment, dated 10-9-1999.
4. Mr. Umar Farooq Khan; learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that there were material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, both of whom were customs officials and no independent witness was examined.
5. We find no force in any of the said contentions. Only material contradictions in respect of evidence which has inculpatory force are to be considered but minor contradictions which are usually found in the evidence of witnesses are to be over looked. No such material contradiction has been pointed out by Mr. Umer Farooq Khan in this case. No doubt, all the witnesses were customs officials, but the mere fact that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution cannot be fatal to the prosecution case in the circumstances of the case, where the accused was caught at the spot. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution appears to be fully supported by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. So far as the sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, the learned Courts below have already taken a lenient view which does not warrant interference by this Court.
6. In the result, the petitioner is dismissed and the judgment of the High Court is sustained.