'ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 12-5- 2003 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby Criminal Appeal No,488 of 2002 filed by him was dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that on 29-10-2001 at about 8-30 a.m. Petitioner Shahzad Amjad possessing German Passport No,2031653927 and Ticket No,176-3539497-811 with a black colour hand bag was apprehended by complainant Aftab Ahmed Butt, Inspector Customs, at Islamabad Airport. On the search of said bag, 1780 grams of heroin was found concealed in the inner layer of the bag which was taken into possession. Two samples of five grams each were separated and sealed for chemical analyses whereas rest quantity was sealed in separate parcel. Petitioner and his co-convict Muhammad Anwas were taken into custody and were sent along with the written complaint to the Police Station Airport Rawalpindi, for registration of case, where. F.I.R. No,508 was lodged under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"). On completion of investigation, both of them were sent up to face trial.
3. At trial, prosecution examined five witnesses in all and produced the report of Chemical Examiner in evidence as Exh.P.E. Petitioner in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., admitted the guilt while claiming that in fact the bag was handed over to him by co-convict Muhammad Anwas at the Airport for onward transmission to Nadeem Ashraf Butt alias Pasha living in Frankfurt, Germany. He examined himself on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Wherein also he raised the same plea. However, he did not examine anyone in defence.
4. On conclusion of trial, petitioner and co-convict Muhammad Anwas were found guilty of the offence and were convicted under section 9(c) of the Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. For ten years with fine of Rs, 1, 00,000 or in default to suffer S.I. For two years.
5. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred abovementioned appeal before High Court which was dismissed and conviction and sentence was maintained vide impugned judgment.
6. We have heard Ch. Arshad Ali, learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that petitioner had no knowledge that the bag in question, which was handed over to him by his co-convict Muhammad Anwas, in fact contained any narcotics substance. It was locked and its lock was broken by Customs Authorities at the Airport which prima facie shows the ignorance of petitioner.
8. Admittedly, petitioner was found in possession of bag containing narcotics which was opened in his presence and 1780 grams of heroin was recovered from its inner layer. Since petitioner has admitted the guilt in his statements recorded under sections 342 and 340(2), Cr.P.C., as such it would not be necessary to discuss the prosecution evidence which even otherwise fully establishes the case against him. The plea that petitioner had no knowledge about the narcotics concealed inside the layer of the bag is devoid of force, mainly for the reason that petitioner voluntarily took the bag from co-convict Muhammad Anwas at Airport A for onward transmission to Nadeem Ashraf Butt alias Pasha to Frankfurt. The said bag was opened in his presence and 1780 grams of heroin was recovered from inside the same from which two samples were taken which were opined to be heroin as per report of Chemical Examiner. Irrespective of the above, the fact that petitioner was having German passport and Ticket for Frankfurt at the relevant time further corroborates the case of prosecution.
9. From the above resume, it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that petitioner while attempting to smuggle narcotics out of Pakistan was intercepted at Islamabad Airport.
10. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any, justification to interfere with the impugned judgment which is accordingly maintained.
11. Resultantly, petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.