PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 116
[Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench]
Present: Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi and Sadaqat Ali Khan, JJ.
UMER FAROOQ--Appellant
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. A. No. 295 of 2021, heard on 2.12.2021.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)--
----S. 9(c)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Modification in sentence--Recovery of charas--Appellant was found involve in possessing charas mentioned above--The prosecution proved recovery against appellant through statements of recovery witnesses ASI/ complainant (PW.4) and Constable (PW.3)--During analysis of sample, separated from main quantity, in Forensic Science Laboratory, it was also confirmed vide chemical examiner report that recovered substance was charas--The prosecution witnesses remained consistent on all material aspects of case--The prosecution has proved guilt of appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and has successfully discharged its burden through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence--The impugned judgment is based on sound reasoning and there is nothing on record to suggest any ill-will or animosity against any of prosecution witness--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--Conviction of appellant recorded through impugned judgment is maintained, but while considering nature of recovered substance and he being first offender, he should be given an opportunity to mend his ways. [Para 8] A
2015 SCMR 735 & PLJ 2017 SC 660.
Raja Muhammad Ali, Advocate/defence counsel at state expenses for Appellant.
Mr. Naveed Ahmed Warraich, DDPP for State.
Date of hearing 2.12.2021.
Judgment
Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, J.--Appellant Umer Farooq by filing the instant appeal, has challenged judgment dated 01.02.2021 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court CNSA, Jand (Attack), in case FIR No. 148 dated 06.10.2020, under Section 9(c), the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, registered at Police Station Injra, whereby he was held guilty under Section 9(c) of the Act ibid and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and six months with fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default whereof to further undergo SI for five months, with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Succinctly, the allegation against the appellant as per FIR is that on 06.10.2020 at about 05:30 p.m., the appellant was apprehended by the police and from his possession charas in the shape of littar weighing 1180 gram was recovered. Resultantly, the above-said crime report was registered against the appellant under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Injra.
3. After formal investigation, report under Section 173 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court CNSA, Jand and the appellant was sent up for trial. Learned trial Court charge sheeted the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as six prosecution witnesses, out of which Pervaiz Iqbal, ASI (PW.4) is the complainant whereas Adnan Raza, Constable (PW.3) is the recovery witness. The prosecution after tendering in evidence the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PF), closed its evidence. Statement of accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence. The appellant neither opted to appear as his own witnesses on oath as required under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence.
4. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Court, after holding the appellant guilty of offence, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in Paragraph No. 1 above.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/ defense counsel in support of this appeal initially addressed the arguments on merits but considering that no such previous animosity between the complainant/police party and the appellant could be established on record for which the appellant could be falsely involved in such an offence and further that sufficient evidence was available on the file to prove the charge against him, the learned counsel turned to his alternate prayer that he would not challenge the conviction, however, prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that he being first offender and charas has been recovered from his possession which is less dangerous as compared to the heroin, etc., a lenient view may be taken by reducing the sentence.
6. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer has shown no objection if the sentence of the appellant is reduced.
7. Heard. Record perused.
8. Having considered the matter from all angles, we are satisfied that the appellant was found involve in possessing charas mentioned above. The prosecution proved the recovery against the appellant through statements of the recovery witnesses namely Pervaiz Iqbal ASI/ complainant (PW.4) and Adnan Raza, Constable (PW.3). During analysis of the sample, separated from the main quantity, in the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was also confirmed vide chemical examiner report Ex.PF that the recovered substance was charas. The prosecution witnesses remained consistent on all material aspects of the case. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and has successfully discharged its burden through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence. The impugned judgment is based on sound reasoning and there is nothing on the record to suggest any ill-will or animosity against any of the prosecution witness. 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, but while considering the nature of the recovered substance and he being first offender, 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 throush Deputy Director (Law) Regional Directorate. Anti-Narcotics Force vs. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi (PLJ 2017 SC 660), the sentence of the appellant is reduced from four years and six months R.I. to one year R.I. Fine of Rs. 20,000/- is maintained but sentence in default whereof is reduced to 20 days S.I. with benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
9. 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.)
0 Comments