' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---Mst. Anara Bibi appellant and Amanullah, acquitted co-accused were tried jointly by Mr. Khalid Badshah, learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, D.I. Khan for offence under section 9 of Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997. Vide judgment dated 24-4- 2004, the appellant was found guilty and she was convicted under section 9 of the Act and sentenced to suffer 2-1/2 years R.I. With fine of Rs.30,000 or in default thereof, to undergo further two months S.-I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, co-accused Amanullah was extended benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2004 challenged her conviction and sentence.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that pursuant to spy information stated to have been received by P.W. Abdul Ghafoor, S.H.O. Police Station Gomal University, D.I. Khan, complainant in this case, that huge quantity of narcotics would be smuggled by a woman from N.-W.F.P. To Karachi through Bus No.C-1128/Nowshera, a police party was organized. The police party conducted 'Naqabandi' on 2-3-2003 at National Highway near Barki Petrol Pump. At 1830 hours aforesaid bus was sighted coming from D.I. Khan side. The Bus was stopped. 'A woman sitting on front seat was deboarded from the bus. The personal search of the woman through lady constable Mst. Shabana Bibi led to recovery of four plastic envelopes containing charas from her jacket. Another packet of charas wrapped in plastic envelope was also recovered from the 'Gathri' carried by the woman. The chars was weighed and found 5000 grams. On inquiry, she disclosed her name Mst. Anar Bibi wife of Ghulam Hassan, resident of Adil Kalley, Bannu. On further investigation, she stated that one Amanullah son of Abdul Majeed, resident of Wanda Dao (Jani) was her companion and was also traveling in the said bus. Amanullah was also deboarded from the bus. Both the accused having been found guilty of the offence, were formally arrested and a case was registered against them in the shape of a murasila which was subsequently incorporated into F.I.R. By Alawal Khan H.C. (P.W.2).
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced three witnesses namely A.S.-I. Saeed Khan (P.W.1), MHC Alawal Khan (P.W.2) and S.H.O. Abdul Ghafoor (P.W.3). The appellant in her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution allegations levelled against her and claimed to have been falsely charged. She neither appeared as her own witness on Oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produced defence evidence.
5. On conclusion of the trial, learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced her as mentioned above.
6. Arguing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Noor Gul Khan Marwat, Advocate strenuously contended that there is no independent witness in the case to support the prosecution version; that there are glaring contradictions and infirmities in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.3; that star witness in this case namely Mst. Shabana Bibi alleged to have effected recovery from the appellant, has been withheld by the prosecution and that the late dispatch of samples to the Chemical Expert, FSL, Peshawar has made the recovery doubtful. Concluding the arguments, he submitted that though five plastic envelopes containing chars are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant but according to A.S.-I. Saeed Khan (P.W.1), four grams chars was separated from one packet for the purpose of chemical analysis and the appellant at the most can be held responsible for possessing one packet of chars in her possession. To substantiate the pleas, reliance was placed on Mushtaq v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 1312).
7. Syed,Abid Hussain Bukhari, learned counsel appearing for the State defended the impugned judgment maintaing that no discrepancy worth the name could be picked up or pointed out in the statements of prosecution witnesses to doubt their credibility; that all the witnesses made consistent statements, corroborating each other on material points and that none of the witnesses has any motive or malice to implicate the appellant falsely and foist upon her huge quantity of chars.
8. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at considerable length in the light of the material available on the record.
9. Two witnesses, namely A.S.-I. Saeed Khan (P.W.1) and S.H.O. Abdul Ghafoor (P.W.3) have been produced by the prosecution to prove the factum of apprehension of the appellant on 2-3-2003 while traveling in Bus No.C-1128/Nowshera and recovery of contraband chars from the possession of the appellant. The factum of arrest has not been denied. Both the said witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version. However, P.W.1 in his cross-examination, clearly stated, 'that four grams chars was separated from one packet for the purpose of chemical analysis'. It is not discernable from the record whether samples for chemical analysis were obtained from the other packets or not. We feel that at the most the appellant can be held responsible for being in possession of one packet containing chars. Further, the recovery having been effected on 2-3- 2003, samples were received in the office of Chemical Examiner, FSL, Peshawar on 16-4-2003. The report of the Examiner is dated 2-5-2003. The delay in dispatch has not been explained. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the appellants has undergone maximum portion of her sentence and she deserves some leniency. Resultantly, we reduce the sentence of the appellant to one already undergone by her. The amount of fine is also reduced from Rs.30,000 to Rs.3,000 or in default, to suffer one month further S.-I. With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.