PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 131 (DB)
[Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench]
Present: Sadaqat Ali Khan and Ch. Abdul Aziz, JJ.
SOHAIL AHMED--Appellant
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. A. No. 821 of 2023, decided on 2.4.2024.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)--
----S. 9(1)3C--
رشوت کی وصولی - سزا اور سزا - چیلنج - بازیابی کی کارروائی کو ثابت کرنے کے لئے استغاثہ نے دو بازیابی گواہوں ، پی ڈبلیو 3 اور پی ڈبلیو 4 - مذکورہ بالا دو پی ڈبلیو کی اندرونی قیمت پر انحصار کرنے سے پہلے - سی این ایس ایکٹ ، 1997 سے پیدا ہونے والے مقدمات میں سخت دفعات کو مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے دفاع کی محدود گنجائش ہے - سی این ایس ایکٹ ، 1997 کی دفعہ 25 کے ضروری مضمرات کے ذریعہ بازیابی کی کارروائی کو قبولیت حاصل ہوئی اگرچہ سیکشن کی تعمیل نہیں کی گئی۔ 103، سی آر پی سی- کسی ذاتی بغض کی وجہ سے ملزم کے جھوٹے الزامات کو ثابت کرنا مشکل ہے اور استغاثہ کے لیے اس کا سراغ لگانا مشکل ہے- ایسے تضادات جو گواہوں کی موقع سے غیر موجودگی کے بارے میں معقول اشارہ دیتے ہیں، ان کو نافذ کیا جانا چاہیے اور اس سے حاصل ہونے والے فوائد کو مقدمے کا سامنا کرنے والے ملزمین تک پہنچایا جانا چاہیے۔ پی ڈبلیو 3 اور پی ڈبلیو 4 نے اگرچہ جانچ کے دوران وہی موقف دہرایا جو ایف آئی آر میں درج کیا گیا تھا ، لیکن ان میں سے کسی نے بھی یہ بیان نہیں دیا کہ پی ڈبلیو 3 نے برآمد شدہ ممنوعہ مادے کے وزن کے لئے کس پیمانے کا استعمال کیا تھا - استغاثہ کیس کے مطابق چرس سفید رنگ کے پولی تھین بیگ سے برآمد ہوئی تھی لیکن بازیابی میمو کا مطالعہ کیا گیا تھا۔ یہ ظاہر ہوا کہ مذکورہ پولی تھین بیگ شکایت کنندہ نے اپنے قبضے میں نہیں لیا تھا- استغاثہ کے کیس کے مطابق، شکایت موقع پر تیار کی گئی اور بعد میں باضابطہ ایف آئی آر کے اندراج کے لئے حامد آفاق 1103/سی کے ذریعے پولیس اسٹیشن بھیج دی گئی- اگر یہ استغاثہ کا معاملہ تھا تو شکایت برآمدگی کی جگہ پر تیار کی گئی تھی اور بعد میں ایف آئی آر کے اندراج کے لئے پولیس اسٹیشن بھیج دی گئی تھی۔ پھر حامد آفاق 1103/سی کے ثبوت ٹرائل کورٹ کے سامنے ریکارڈ کیے جانے چاہئیں تھے- اگر حامد آفاق 1103/سی کے ثبوت کو روکنے کی کوئی ٹھوس قانونی وجوہات تھیں تو ان وجوہات سے پردہ اٹھایا جانا چاہیے تھا- ہائی کورٹ نے نوٹ کیا کہ ایک طرف حامد آفاق 1103/سی ٹرائل کورٹ کے سامنے پیش نہیں ہوئے اور دوسری طرف استغاثہ کی جانب سے اس سلسلے میں کوئی دلیل پیش نہیں کی گئی۔ جہاں تک اس کا تعلق موقع پر شکایت کی تیاری، اسے تھانے بھیجنے اور اس کے بعد ایف آئی آر کے اندراج سے متعلق ہے، استغاثہ کے معاملے کو نقصان پہنچایا ہے جبکہ ایف آئی آر کے اندراج کے لئے پولیس اسٹیشن میں شکایت لانے والے پولیس کانسٹیبل کو پیش نہ کرنے کے معاملے سے نمٹا گیا ہے- اپیل قبول کرلی گئی۔
Recovery of charas--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--In order to prove recovery proceedings prosecution banked upon statements of two recovery witnesses, PW.3 and PW.4--Before dilating upon intrinsic worth of afore-mentioned two PWs--Cases arising out of CNS Act, 1997 have limited scope for defence keeping in view stringent provisions--Through necessary implication of Section 25 of CNS Act, 1997 recovery proceedings attained acceptance even if not conducted in adherence to Section 103, Cr.P.C--False implication of an accused due to some personal grudge is difficult to prove and inexorably is hard nut to crack for prosecution--Discrepancies which give a reasonable clue about absence of witnesses from spot were to be given effect and benefit arising out of it ought to be extended to accused facing trial--In same stretch, PW.3 and PW.4 though reiterated during examination-in-chief same stance which was laid down in FIR, none of them deposed as to which scale was used by PW.3 for weighing recovered contraband substance--According to prosecution case Charas was recovered from white coloured polythene bag but perusal of recovery memo. showed that said polythene bag was not taken into possession by complainant--According to case of prosecution, complaint was prepared at spot and later dispatched to police station through Hamid Afaq 1103/C for registration of formal FIR--If at all it was case of prosecution that complaint was drafted at place of recovery and later was dispatched to Police Station for registration of F.I.R., then evidence of Hamid Afaq 1103/C should had been recorded before trial Court--If there were some compelling legal reasons for withholding evidence of Hamid Afaq 1103/C, veil should had been lifted from such reasons--It was noticed by High Court that on one hand Hamid Afaq 1103/C did not appear before trial Court and on other hand no reasoning in that regard was offered by prosecution--By no stretch could be ignored as it has damaged case of prosecution so far as it relates to preparation of complaint at spot, its dispatch to Police Station and subsequent registration of F.I.R--While dealing with issue of non-production of police constable who brought complaint to police station for registration of FIR--Appeal accepted. [Pp. 134 & 135] A & B
Mr. Saad Waqas, Advocate for Appellant.
Mian Imran Rahim, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 2.4.2024.
Judgment
Ch. Abdul Aziz, J.--Sohail Ahmed (appellant) involved in case F.I.R No. 72/2023 dated 15.03.2023 registered under Section 9(1)3c of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as CNS Act, 1997) at Police Station Sohawa, was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNSA, Sohawal, who vide judgment dated 27.10.2023 convicted and sentenced him as under:-
Under Section 9(1)3c of CNS Act, 1997 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 09-years along with fine of Rs. 80,000/-and in default whereof to further undergo 03-months S.I. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was, however, extended to the appellant.
Challenging his conviction and sentence, the appellant filed the instant criminal appeal.
2. Concisely stated the case of the prosecution as per contents of F.I.R (Exh.PB/2) is that on 15.03.2023 Muhammad Arbi Khan ASI (PW.3) along with Hamid Afaq 1103/C, Jameel Akhtar 674/C and Rizwan Tanveer 514/C, on a private vehicle bearing registration No. LEB-1490, was present near 7-Marla Scheme Sohawa for the purpose of patrolling and search of drug peddlers; that meanwhile he received spy information that Sohail Ahmad was present inside Dhoke Mirpur graveyard and selling narcotics to his specific customers and was in possession of Charas, if raided he could be arrested; that after the receipt of this information Muhammad Arbi Khan ASI (PW.3) constituted a raiding party and at about 11:20 a.m. reached the afore-said place where Sohail Ahmad (appellant) was standing; that the appellant was overpowered by Muhammad Arbi Khan ASI with the assistance of accompanying officials; that from the shopping bag which the appellant was holding in his right hand Charas (garda numa) weighing 1210 grams was recovered, out of which 61-grams were separated for chemical analysis. Thereafter, he drafted complaint (Exh.PB) and sent it to the police station through Hamid Afaq 1103/C for the registration of formal F.I.R.
3. The matter after investigation was placed before the trial Court where prosecution in order to prove its case against the appellant produced 05-witnesses, namely, Mansoor Ahmad 941/HC (PW.1) was performing his duties as Moharrar/Station clerk at the relevant time, Sajid Dawood ASI (PW.2) got sent the appellant to judicial lock-up, Muhammad Arbi Khan ASI (PW.3) and Jameel Akhtar 674/C (PW.4) are the witnesses of recovery, Tariq Mehmood SI (PW.5) investigated the case. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court also examined the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. during which he was asked the questions arising out of the prosecution evidence but he denied almost all such questions while pleading his innocence and false involvement in the case. Appellant neither opted to make statement under Section 340(2) of, Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in his defence. On the conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as afore-stated, hence, the instant criminal appeal.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. A wade through the record unveils that on 15.03.2023 Muhammad Arbi Khan ASI (PW.3) along with other police officials was present near 7-Marla Scheme, Sohawa in a private vehicle for the purpose of official duty. In the meantime, he received spy information that Sohail Ahmed (appellant) was present inside Dhoke Mirpur graveyard and selling narcotics to his specific customers. Upon the receipt of such information, a police contingent under the supervision of Muhammad Arbi Khan ASI raided the afore-said place and apprehended Sohail Ahmad (appellant). From the white coloured polythene shopping bag which the appellant was holding in his right hand Charas weighing 1210 grams was recovered. Out of the recovered narcotic substance, 61 grams were separated for chemical analysis.
6. We have observed that in order to prove the recovery proceedings the prosecution banked upon the statements of two recovery witnesses, namely Muhammad Arbi Khan ASI (PW.3) and Jameel Akhtar 674/C (PW.4). Before dilating upon the intrinsic worth of the afore-mentioned two PWs, it is considered appropriate to mention here that the cases arising out of CNS Act, 1997 have limited scope for defence keeping in view the stringent provisions. Through necessary implication of Section 25 of CNS Act, 1997 the recovery proceedings attain acceptance even if not conducted in adherence to Section 103, Cr.P.C. Likewise, the false implication of an accused due to some personal grudge is difficult to prove and inexorably is hard nut to crack for the prosecution. In the given circumstances, the discrepancies which give a reasonable clue about the absence of witnesses from the spot are to be given effect and benefit arising out of it ought to be extended to accused facing trial. In the same stretch, Muhammad Arbi Khan ASI (PW.3) and Jameel Akhtar 674/C (PW.4) though reiterated during the examination-in-chief the same stance which is laid down in the FIR, however none of them deposed as to which scale was used by Muhammad Arbi Khan ASI (PW.3) for weighing the recovered contraband substance. Likewise, we have observed that according to the prosecution case the Charas was recovered from the white coloured polythene bag but perusal of recovery memo. (Exh.PA) shows that the said polythene bag was not taken into possession by the complainant-police officer. Moreover, according to the case of prosecution, the complaint (Exh.PB) was prepared at the spot and later dispatched to police station through Hamid Afaq 1103/C for the registration of formal FIR. It needs no scholarly discussion that if at all it was the case of prosecution that complaint was drafted at the place of recovery and later was dispatched to Police Station for the registration of F.I.R., then the evidence of Hamid Afaq 1103/C should have been recorded before the trial Court. If there were some compelling legal reasons for withholding the evidence of Hamid Afaq 1103/C, the veil should have been lifted from such reasons. It is noticed by us that on one hand Hamid Afaq 1103/C did not appear before the trial Court and on other hand no reasoning in this regard was offered by the prosecution. Such omission, in the given circumstances, by no stretch can be ignored as it has damaged the case of prosecution so far as it relates to the preparation of complaint at the spot, its dispatch to Police Station and
subsequent registration of F.I.R. While dealing with the issue of non-production of police constable who brought the complaint to the police station for the registration of FIR, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Minhaj Khan v. The State (2019 SCMR 326) held as under:
“……… the non-production of Constable Jehanzeb Khan who took the written complaint and was an eye-witness of the occurrence and of the recovery memorandums; and the inexplicable conduct of the Complainant PW-2 in not proceeding to the police station himself to register the FIR are matters of concern and collectively of incredulity. The conclusion therefrom that we draw is that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, or, at worst, that the petitioner was involved in a false case for ulterior reasons.”
7. From the anomalies mentioned hereinabove, we are persuaded to hold that a reasonable doubt emerges about the guilt of appellant. Resultantly, the instant criminal appeal filed by Sohail Ahmad (appellant) is accepted; his conviction and sentence are set-aside and he stands acquitted of the charge by extending benefit of doubt in his favour. He is under custody. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other criminal case.
(A.A.K.) Appeal accepted
0 Comments