Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL GHAFFAR VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice BASHIR A. MUJAHIDCh. Muhammad Aslam Sindhu
2008 Y L R 1199
2008 Y L R 1199
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain and Bashir A. Mujahid, JJ
ABDUL GHAFFAR---Appellant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.478 of 2002, heard on 29th January, 2004.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---
----S. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Huge quantity of "Charas" was recovered from the village pond on the pointation of accused---Accused was apprehended at the spot, but his co-accused had run away by throwing a shopper containing one K.G. and 100 grams of "Charas"-No reason was available for false implication of accused by the complainant by letting off the real culprits---Conviction of accused was, therefore, maintained---Two senior police officers, however, had found in investigation that the accused was not dealing in the narcotics himself, but he had arranged a house on rent for the co-accused and that he was not an addict---Sentence of 14 years' R.I. of accused was reduced to 7 years' R.I. in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sindhu for Appellant.
Shahid Qayyum for the State.
Date of hearing: 29th January, 2004.
JUDGMENT
BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---Abdul Ghaffar son of Fateh Muhammad has challenged judgment, dated 1-3-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala whereby he was convicted under section 9-C of CNSA and was sentenced to 14 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.50,000 or in default of payment to further undergo one year's R.I.
Through the same judgment Muhammad Aslam son of Lal Din was acquitted of the charge.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Sibtain S-I. P.W.3 got registered F.I.R. No.77, dated 22-2-2000 under section 9-C of CNSA, 1997, with the allegations that he was on patrol duty along with other police officials where he received secret information that Abdul Ghaffar appellant and Waris since proclaimed offenders deal in narcotic in a rented house in Shahzad Town and at that time they are standing with Charas in grave-yard of Kot Yaqoob and can be apprehended if raid is conducted. On this information raiding party was formed and appellant was apprehended at the spot whereas co-accused Waris Ali fled away by throwing black shopper containing 1 K.G. and 100 grams of Charas, which was taken into possession by the police and Abdul Ghaffar appellant during investigation, made a disclosure that he along with Waris Ali (since P.O.) deals in sale and purchase of Charas. He further disclosed that they had concealed more Charas in the water pond in Shahzad Town near Muridke Narowal road and as such, on his pointation three bags of plastic (each bag containing 20 packets Charas) were recovered. Every packet was containing one K.G. of Charas was recovered and as such total 67 K.G. and 100 grams of Charas was recovered from the accused. Muhammad Sibtain P.W.3 got his supplementary statement recorded on 15-5-2000 stating therein that Muhammad Aslam also deals in Charas along with Muhammad Boota and Waris Ali (since P.O). After completion of investigation challan against the accused was submitted.
3. The trial Court framed the charge which was denied by the accused and they claimed trial.
4. During trial prosecution examined Rasheed Ahmad P.W.1 who was member of the raiding party and attested recovery memo. Exh.P.A. where-by 1 K.G. and 100 grams. On the pointation of present appellant 67 K.G. and 100 grams of Charas was recovered from him and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. He also attested this memo. Muhammad Arshad A.S-I. P.W.2 was also member of the raiding party. Shabbir Ahmad P.W.4 Head Constable kept the sealed parcel in safe custody of police Malkhana. Muhammad Younis, A.S-I./P.W.5 recorded formal F. I. R. Exh. PC/1. Mahmood Ahmad P. W.6 was entrusted non-bailable warrants of Waris accused who was not traceable and was declared P.O. Muhammad Yousuf P.W.7 investigated the case and prepared the site plan. He recorded statements of P.Ws. under section 161, Cr.P.C. Abdul Rehman P.W.8 delivered the sealed parcels at the office of Chemical Examiner.
5. After closing the prosecution evidence statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations and claimed his innocence and false involvement. In defence the appellant examined D.W.1 Muhammad Waqar Abbasi, 4.S.P., who stated that many persons appeared in support of the appellant to prove his innocence. D.W.2 Liaquat Ali, Inspector deposed that some persons appeared before him and supported the version of accused Abdul Ghafoor by stating that Waris, Aslam and Boota were dealing in sale of narcotic and appellant was innocent. D.W.3 Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah was Imam Masjid of the village for more than 8 years. He stated that he has no concern with the case and in cross-examination he admitted that Abdul Ghafoor had obtained a house for his co-accused on rent basis and stated that he was un-aware about the narcotic if the appellant or his co-accused were dealing:
6. The trial culminated into conviction and sentence of the appellant as mentioned above. He has challenged his conviction and sentence through the instant appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant was falsely implicated and many persons appeared in. his defence during the investigation and in investigation conducted by higher police officials he was found innocent, therefore, case, against him is doubtful and he `be acquitted of the charge by extending benefit of doubt.
8. Learned State Counsel has opposed this appeal.
9. Heard. Record perused.
10. Huge quantity was recovered from the village pond on the pointation of present appellant although it was his first plea that the same belonged to his co-accused. He was apprehended at the spot when co-accused. Waris ran away by throwing shopper containing 1 K.G. and 100 grams of Charas. There is no reason for his false implication by the complainant by letting off real culprits, therefore, 'we do not find any force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant for interference in the conviction recorded against the appellant.
As far as sentence is concerned, admittedly investigation was conducted by two senior police officers and according to their investigation the petitioner was not found dealing in the narcotics but he was responsible for arranging a house on rent basis for the co-accused and himself is not addict. Therefore, while maintaining conviction we reduce the sentence to 7 years' R.I. but punishment of fine or in default thereof sentence is maintained. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. will be available to the appellant.
N. H. Q./A-188/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence reduced.