PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 684 (DB)
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)--
----S. 9(c)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Modification in sentence--Allegation of--Recovery of contraband heroin--Weight of recovered contraband--Chemical analysis--Such contraband was planted to oblige superiors--All above-said witnesses have remained firm and made consistent statements on material particulars and counsel for appellant has failed to point out any discrepancy worth name or contradiction in their statements--No ill-will or enmity has been proved on part of these witnesses for false implication--In this way, impugned judgment, resulting into conviction of appellant is not open to any exception--According to prosecution case, heroin weighing 1015 grams was recovered from personal possession of appellant and out of recovered contraband 10 grams was separated for chemical analysis--The report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore reveals that though sample which was tested, its net weight was 10 grams whereby result was came to 05.38 grams--When weight of sample parcel, made at Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore is considered and said proportionate weight of whole quantity is calculated/ taken into account, it surely reduces quantity of narcotics and said proportionate weight of whole quantity coupled with fact that according to prosecution's own case contraband heroin was weighed with its wrapper, in this way, it cannot be ruled out that actual quantity recovered from appellant was around 500 grams or less, therefore, case of appellant would fall within purview of Section 9(b) of Act ibid--Hence, conviction of appellant is converted from Section 9 (c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to Section 9 (b) of Act--Modification in sentence, appeal was dismissed. [P. 687] A & B
PLD 2009 Lahore 362.
Mr. Samar Naveed Malik and Mr. Arshad Majeed Chaudhary, Advocates for Appellant.
Mr. Naveed Ahmad Warraich, DDPP for State.
Date of hearing: 6.10.2021.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 684 (DB)
[Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench]
MAZHAR IQBAL SATTI--Appellant
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. A. No. 736 of 2017, heard on 6.10.2021.
Judgment
Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, J.--Appellant Mazhar Iqbal Satti was tried in case FIR No. 400 dated 29.09.2014 offence under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Police Station Kahuta, Rawalpindi, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi who vide his judgment dated 26.05.2016 convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of CNSA and sentenced him to six years R.I. with fine of Rs. 30,000/-and in default thereof to further undergo six months S.I. The appellant was also granted benefit as contained in Section 382-B of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
Feeling aggrieved from the decision of learned trial Court, Mazhar Iqbal Satti, appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence through the appeal in hand.
2. Precisely, the facts as gleaned through the crime report (Ex.PC/1) lodged on the basis of complaint (Ex.PC) by the complainant Muhammad Amin, S.I (P.W.2) are that on 29.09.2014 at 06:50 AM he along with his companion was present on patrolling duty at Kallar Bus Stand Chani Awan Road where he received spy information that the present appellant was selling heroin to his clients at Ara Mohallah Tandoor Chowk, Kahuta. Upon this information, a raiding party was constituted and the appellant was apprehended at the pointed place and from his personal search heroin weighing 1015 gram wrapped in a plastic shopper which he was carrying in his right hand, was recovered. Out of which 10 grams was separated for the purpose of chemical analysis. On personal search of appellant, Rs. 4500/-of different denomination of currency notes and one mobile set Q and his I.D Card, were also recovered which were taken into possession. Hence, the crime report.
3. After completion of investigation, the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was sent to concerned Court where charge against the Mazhar Iqbal Satti (appellant) was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined five witnesses namely Sajjad Mumtaz 430/C as PW.1, Muhammad Amin, SI/ complainant (PW.2), Muhammad Yaqoob, ASI/ recovery witness (PW.3), Nadar Khan 2119/HC (PW.4) and Muhammad Arif, SI (PW.5). After tendering in evidence report (Ex.PE) of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore, the prosecution closed its evidence.
4. After completion of evidence on behalf of prosecution, the statement of appellant was recorded under Section 342 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, wherein he refuted the allegations leveled against him and professed his innocence. The appellant opted to appear as his own witness u/S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. and submitted copy of FIR No. 143/10 P.S Kahuta (Ex.DA) and also produced Raja Hassan Akhtar (DW.1) in his defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court, considering appellant guilty of offence, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in preceding Para No. 1 above.
5. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant contends that he does not dispute the conviction of the appellant and prays for reduction in sentence on the ground that as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PE), sample of 10 grams heroin was prepared by the complainant, which was subsequently sent for chemical analysis, has been found to be 05.38 grams, hence, quantity of total heroin shown to have been recovered from the appellant as 1015 grams heroin was infact much less than that weighed by the investigating officer with his defective scale.
6. Having considered the matter from all angles, we are satisfied that the appellant was found involved in possessing heroin mentioned above. During analysis of the sample, sent to the PFSA, Lahore, it was confirmed vide report (Ex.PE) that the recovered substance was heroin. Three witnesses namely Muhammad Amin, SI, complainant (PW.2), Muhammad Yaqoob, ASI (PW.3) and Nadar Khan 2119/HC (PW.4) recovery witnesses have been produced by the prosecution to establish the factum of apprehension of the appellant and recovery of contraband heroin from his possession. Regarding the recovery, suffice it to say that the deposition of Muhammad Amin, SI/ complainant (PW.2) gaining strength from the statements of Muhammad Yaqoob, ASI (PW.3) and Nadar Khan, HC (PW.4) can safely be depended upon as he is not only a responsible officer but has supported the prosecution version in a straightforward manner. All these three witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross examination in order to shatter the prosecution version but nothing beneficial to appellant could come out of their mouth. It is difficult to believe that such contraband was planted to oblige the superiors. It may be remarked here that all above-said witnesses have remained firm and made consistent statements on material particulars and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any discrepancy worth the name or contradiction in their statements. No ill-will or enmity has been proved on the part of these witnesses for false implication. In this way, the impugned judgment, resulting into conviction of the appellant is not open to any exception.
appellant was arrested in this case on 29.09.2014 and he was enlarged on bail by this Court on 22.07.2017. However, after his conviction he was again arrested on 26.05.2016. Thereafter, his sentence was suspended by this Court on 22.08.2017. Thus, in this way, he has already served out more 25 months sentence which is more than as mentioned above including the sentence of fine, therefore, he is set at liberty and his surety is discharged.
8. With the modification in sentence as indicated above, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments