AMAN ULLAH vs THE STATE

' MIAN MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR, J.--- By this judgment Criminal Appeal No,1884 of 2001 filed by Aman Ullah son of Muhammad Umar Khan, caste Saafi, resident of Baghdad Colony, Gujrat, is being disposed of which emerged from the judgment passed by Ch. Faiz Talib Khan, learned Judge Special Court (C.N.S.A.), Gujrat, dated 31-10-2001, whereby, Aman Ullah appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs,25,000, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. He was given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

2. The facts of the prosecution case have been disclosed in the case bearing F.I.R. No,56 dated 11-3- 2001, registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, with Police Station A-Division, Gujrat, lodged at the instance of Umar Hayat, A.S.-I.

' The allegation against the appellant was that on 11-3-2001 at about 4-30 a.m. In the area of Kunjah Chowk, when he was apprehended by a police party, Charas 1005 grams in weight was recovered from his possession.

' Charas 10 grams in weight was separated and made into a sealed parcel for chemical analysis.

The entire quantity of Charas was taken into possession. Complaint Exh.P.A./1 was sent to the police station for registration of case. Rough sketch of the place of recovery Exh.P.C. Was prepared by Ghulam Sarwar, S.-I. After completion of necessary investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court for trial of the appellant.

3. When the trial commenced, Umar Hayat, A.S.-I., who drafted formal F.I.R. (P.W.1) Khadim Hussain, Constable, who deposited the parcel in the office of Chemical Examiner (P.W.2), Akhtar Mehmood, A.S.-I. (P.W.3) (recovery witness), Ghulam Sarwar, S.-I. (P.W.4) who apprehended the appellant, recovered the Charas as mentioned above and conducted investigation in this case, appeared to establish the prosecution case. Nasim Hussain, H.C. (P.W.5) Moharrar of the police station also appeared for the prosecution and then the report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.D. Was tendered as a corroborative piece of evidence.

4. At the close of prosecution case, statement of Aman Ullah, appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegation as levelled by the prosecution and professed about his innocence. He advanced this version that Fida Khan, Hayat Gul and Muhammad Gul, the real brothers of his wife, deal with the business of narcotics, to whom fie resisted in this affair, therefore, they because of grudge, falsely involved him in this case.

' Gul-e-Meena, wife of the appellant appeared as D.W.1 to prove the innocence of the appellant.

5. Anyhow, on conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court found that the prosecution has established its case, therefore, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly argued that each and every aspect of the prosecution case is highly doubtful because the record speaks that the dates were not mentioned on some material documents; that there was violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. In case of the process of the alleged recovery of the Charas; that the statements of the recovery witnesses are full of material discrepancies, therefore, it was a clear case of acquittal and last of all he submitted that if it is believed that the prosecution has proved its case, then the sentence passed by the learned trial Court be reduced by taking a lenient view because the appellant is Afghan national and that there is no one outside the jail to look after his wife and children.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution on each and every aspect of this case was consistent and convincing due to which the prosecution had established its case, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court calls for no interference.

8. We have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and caution and it appears that the evidence of the prosecution is very convincing and there was no justification to involve the appellant in a case of recovery of heavy quantity of the narcotics; and that the defence version advanced by the appellant is totally afterthought and worth no reliance.

9. Anyhow, we feel that the appellant is facing the agony of trial since 11-3-2001 as he is behind the bars, therefore, the conviction passed by the learned trial Court is maintained, but the sentence of ten years awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to seven years and the fine of Rs,25,000 is also reduced to Rs,10,000 and in default to undergo one year's R.I.

' The appeal is disposed of accordingly.