PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 55
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)--
----S. 9(c)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Question of sentence--Modification in sentence--Sentence reduced--Recovery of charas--Two witnesses--Such quantity of charas was; planted upon appellant to oblige superiors--It may be remarked here that all said witnesses have remained firm and made consistent statements on material particulars and learned 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 for offence under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, is not open to any exception--Consequently, conviction of appellant recorded through impugned judgment is maintained--Quantity of recovered substance i.e. charas which is less dangerous as compared to heroin or other drugs, he being first offender and his expression of remorse and repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future, he should be given an opportunity to mend his ways--With modification in sentence of appellant, appeaql was dismissed.
[Para 9] A & B
2015 SCMR 735 and PLJ 2017 SC 660.
Ms. Farzana Mumtaz, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Sajjad Hussain Bhatti, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 21.4.2022.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 55
[Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench]
Present: Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi and Sadaqat Ali Khan, JJ.
UMER FAROOQ alias UMRA--Appellant
versus
STATE--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 579 of 2021, heard on 21.4.2022.
Judgment
Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, J.--Appellant, Umer Farooq through instant appeal assails the vires of judgment dated 25.06.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court CNS, Rawalpindi, whereby he was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in case FIR No. 804 dated 04.05.2020 registered at Police Station Airport, Rawalpindi u/S. 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and six months and with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for five months and 15 days with benefit of Section 382-BCr.P.C.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the vehicle of Umer Farooq alias Umra, appellant was intercepted by the police party of Police Station Airport, Rawalpindi and he was found in possession of one packet of charas weighing 1200 gram concealed in fold of his shalwar and one packet of charas weighing 1150 gram under the driving seat, total weighing 2350 gram were recovered; out of which 60 and 65 gram respectively were separated for the purpose of chemical analysis and sealed into a separate parcel. The case was structured through complaint (Ex.PD) by Afzal Mehmood, SI (PW.4) and recovery was supported by Tajdar Aadil, Constable (PW.2).
3. After formal investigation, report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 was prepared and submitted before the trial Court. The appellant was sent to face the trial after, delivering the copies of the documents in terms of Section 265-C of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the trial Court framed the charge against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. At the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses, out of which Afzal Mehmood, SI (PW.4) and Tajdar Aadil, Constable (PW.2) are the star witnesses. The prosecution renounced Touqeer Ahmad, Constable/ PW being unnecessary and after tendering in evidence report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PF), closed its evidence.
5. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence. The appellant/accused neither opted to make statement on oath as required under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in his defence.
6. After completion of evidence from both the sides, the learned trial Court, after holding the appellant guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in preceding Paragraph No. 1 above.
7. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant contends that he does not dispute the conviction of appellant under Section 9(c) of the Act, however, he requested for reduction of the sentence as the appellant is first offender and he has expressed remorse and repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future. Goes on to maintain that since Charas has been recovered from his possession being less harmful and dangerous as compared to the other narcotic substance like heroin etc. therefore, sentence awarded to the appellant is on higher side and may be reduced appropriately.
8. On the other hand, learned Law Officer opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment.
9. Having considered the matter from all angles, we are satisfied that the appellant was found involved in possessing charas mentioned above. According to the prosecution’s case on 04.05.2020 at about 08:40 AM the police contingent intercepted the vehicle of the appellant and upon his personal search one packet of charas weighing 1200 gram concealed in fold of his shalwar and one packet of charas weighing 1150 gram under the driving seat, total weighing 2350 gram were recovered; out of which 60 and 65 gram respectively were separated for the purpose of chemical analysis and sealed into a separate parcel. During analysis of the sample, sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore, it was confirmed vide report (Ex.PF) that the recovered substance was charas. Two witnesses namely, Afzal Mehmood, SI (PW.4) and Tajdar Aadil, Constable (PW.2) have been produced by the prosecution to establish the factum of apprehension of the appellant/accused and recovery of contraband charas from his possession, Regarding the recovery, suffice it to say that the deposition of Afzal Mehmood, SI (PW.4) gaining strength from the statement of Tajdar Aadil, Constable (PW.2) can safely be depended upon as he is not only a responsible officer but has supported the prosecution version in a straightforward manner. These witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination in order to shatter the prosecution version but nothing beneficial to accused/appellant could come out of their mouth. It is difficult to believe that such quantity of charas was planted upon the appellant to oblige the superiors. It may be remarked here that all the 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 for offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is not open to any exception. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant recorded through the impugned judgment is maintained. So far as quantum of his sentence is concerned, while considering the nature quantity of the recovered substance i.e. charas which is less dangerous as compared to heroin or other drugs, he being the first offender and his expression of remorse and repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future, he should be given an opportunity to mend his ways. Hence, while relying upon case of Khuda Bakhsh vs. The State (2015 SCMR 735; & The State through Deputy Director (Law) Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force vs. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi (PLJ 2017 SC 660), the sentence of the appellant is reduced from five years and six months R.I. to two years and four months R.I. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 25,000/-is maintained but imprisonment in default whereof is reduced to one month S.I.
10. With the above mentioned modification in sentence of the appellant, the appeal in hand is dismissed. The disposal of the case property shall be as ordered by the learned trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments