PLJ 2026 Cr.C. (Note) 3
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, JJ.
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. A. No. 248-J of 2012, heard on 18.2.2016.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)--
دفعہ 9(ج۔) -- ہیروئن کی برآمدگی -- سزا اور قید -- چیلنج -- یہ اب اچھی طرح طے شدہ اصول ہے کہ پولیس کے ملازمین / اے این ایف کے اہلکار، ان کے خلاف کسی بھی بد نیتی کے نہ ہونے کی صورت میں، اتنے ہی معتبر گواہ ہیں جتنے کہ نجی گواہ، اور اس مقدمے میں ایسی بد نیتی بالکل موجود نہیں ہے -- یہ امر بلا شبہ ثابت ہے کہ یہ اپیلٹ ہی تھا جس نے انکشاف کیا تھا کہ ہیروئن فٹ بالوں میں چھپائی گئی ہے اور اس کی نشاندہی پر فٹ بالوں سے ہیروئن برآمد ہوئی، لہٰذا اپیلٹ منشیات کے شعوری قبضے میں تھا -- اس مقدمے میں ہیروئن کے بیس پیکٹ برآمد ہوئے، جن میں سے ہر ایک کا وزن 250 گرام تھا، اور بیس نمونوں کے پڑیے تیار کیے گئے، ہر پیکٹ سے ایک ایک نمونے کا پڑیا -- کیمیکل ایگزامینر کی رپورٹ کے مطابق کیمیکل کے دفتر میں ہیروئن پر مشتمل بیس مہر بند پڑیے موصول ہوئے، کیمیکل کی رپورٹ مزید طور پر استغاثہ کے کیس کی تائید کرتی ہے -- اپیل خارج۔
----S. 9(c)--Recovery of heroin--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--It is by now well settled that police employees/ANF Officials are as good witnesses as private witnesses, in absence of any mala fide against them, which is very much lacking in this case--Admittedly it was appellant, who disclosed that Heroin was concealed in footballs and on his pointation, Heroin was recovered from footballs, therefore, appellant was in conscious possession of narcotics--Twenty packets of Heroin were, recovered in this case, each weighing 250 grams and twenty sample parcels, one sample parcel from each packet, were prepared--According to report of Chemical Examiner twenty sealed parcels were received in office of Chemical which contained Heroin, report of Chemical further supports prosecution case against appellant--Appeal dismissed.
[Para 8 & 9] A & B
Ch. Zulfiqar Ali Hargan, Advocate for Appellant.
Sahibzada Anwar Hameed, Special Prosecutor for ANF for State.
Date of hearing: 18.2.2016.
Judgment
Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.05.2012, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court Control of Narcotic Substances, Lahore, whereby, in case F.I.R No. 10 dated 13.06.2010, registered at Police Station ANF, District Sialkot, under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 08 years R.I with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-and in default of payment thereof the appellant was directed to further undergo S.I for 06 months. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant.
2. Briefly, the accusation leveled in the F.I.R against the appellant is that on 13.06.2010 at 11:00 p.m, on spy information, a raid was conducted by the officials of ANF and the appellant Naveed Ahmed along with his co-accused Arif Ali (since acquitted) was apprehended at the spot. On query, the appellant Naveed Ahmad Ahmed disclosed and led to the recovery of Heroin weighing 5 kilograms concealed in the footballs, lying in vehicle LWC/2970, through which the appellant along with his co-accused were travelling. Twenty separate parcels of Heroin weighing 10 grams each, for Chemical Analysis were prepared. The appellant was interrogated and was challaned to face the trial. The charge was framed against the appellant and his co-accused on 09.02.2011 to which they pleaded not guilty so the prosecution was directed to produce its evidence. The prosecution produced three witnesses including the I.O. Rana Muhammad Sarwar SI/complainant (PW-2) and the recovery witness Munawar Hussain, Constable (PW-3). The learned Judge, Special Court Control of Narcotic Substances, Lahore after recording the statement of the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments, passed the impugned judgment, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned and detailed above.
3. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt; that the appellant is absolutely innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case; that the allegedly recovered contraband was concealed in footballs, lying in the vehicle and the prosecution has not proved the conscious possession of the appellant; that the prosecution has not proved the recovery of allegedly recovered narcotics from the possession of the appellant rather it was recovered from the secret places; that the prosecution could not prove that the appellant was owner of the allegedly recovered contraband; that although the narcotics was allegedly recovered near Sialkot Airport but no public witness was associated during the recovery proceedings; that the appellant has been made a scapegoat in this case; that the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, therefore, the same may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the charge.
5. On the other hand, this appeal has been opposed by learned Law Officer on the grounds that the appellant was caught red handed while transporting five kilograms Heroin, which was concealed in footballs; that the recovery witnesses stood the test of lengthy cross examination but nothing favourable to the appellant could be brought on the record; that the report of Chemical Examiner has further established that the material recovered from the possession of the appellant was Heroin; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of any doubt; that the appellant could not establish any mala fide on the part of the prosecution for his false involvement in this case; that there is no substance in the present appeal, hence the same may be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, learned Law Officer and have also gone through the record.
7. According to the prosecution case, on 13.06.2010, the vehicle bearing registration No. LWC-2970 was intercepted by ANF Officials, near Sialkot International Airport. Naveed Ahmad (appellant) and Arif Ali (co-accused since acquitted) were found in the abovementioned vehcile. Naveed Ahmed (appellant), disclosed to the ANF Officials that Heroin was concealed in the footballs, available in the abovementioned vehicle and then he led the ANF Officials and got recovered carton of footballs. On opening twenty footballs, twenty packets of Heroin were found in each football, weighing 250 grams each, total five kilograms Heroin was recovered. Ten grams Heroin from each packet was separated for sample purposes and twenty parcels of samples were prepared and sent to the Chemical Examiner Office for their analysis. The recovery witnesses namely Rana Muhammad Sarwar SI (PW-2) and Munawar Hussain Constable (PW-3) were cross examined at length but nothing favourable to the appellant could be brought on the record. Their evidence is straightforward and confidence inspiring. There are no material contradictions in the statements of the recovery witnesses.
8. The objection of learned counsel for the appellant that no public witness was associated during the recovery proceedings, has no force because the provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C. are not applicable in this case, in view of Section 25 of the of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. It is by now well settled that police employees/ANF Officials are as good witnesses as private witnesses, in absence of any mala fide against them, which is very much lacking in this case. Admittedly it was the appellant, who disclosed that Heroin was concealed in footballs and on his pointation, Heroin was recovered from the footballs, therefore, the appellant was in conscious possession of the narcotics.
9. As mentioned earlier, twenty packets of Heroin were, recovered in this case, each weighing 250 grams and twenty sample parcels, one sample parcel from each packet, were prepared. According to the report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PI), twenty sealed parcels were received in the office of Chemical Examiner, which contained Heroin, therefore, the report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PI) further supports the prosecution case against the appellant.
10. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts, the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of any doubt, therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Apppeal dismissed
0 Comments