' SH. ABDUR RASHID, J.--- Mir Zaman son of Muhammad Umar appellant was tried in case F.I.R.
No,154 of 2002, dated 28-6-2002 under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station New Anarkali, Lahore on the report of Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and vide judgment dated 28-6-2003 was convicted as such and sentenced to suffer eight years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,50,000 or to undergo six months' S.I.
In default of payment of fine. Benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also granted to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved of the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.
2. The prosecution story in brief as stated in the F.I.R. Is that during interrogation of case F.I.R. No,153 of 2002 under section 9(c) C.N.S.A. One Muhammad Ajmal accused disclosed before Muhammad Aslam, Inspector Incharge Investigation Police Station Shandara, Lahore that his another companion namely Mir Zaman who also sold Charas will pass from Qutab-ud-Din Aibak Road, hence the said Investigating Officer along with Sajjad Ahmad Khan, Raza Abbas and Muhammad Khan, A.S.-Is. Mian Muhammad Khalid C. No,1184 and Zaheer Ahmad C. No,2136 set up a picket at Darbar Qutab-ud-Din Aibak Road. After a short time Mir Zaman who was coming from the side of Anarkali Bazar, attempted to escape on seeing the police staff who was apprehended and on his personal search four packets of Charas containing one kilogram each was recovered out of which 10 grams from each packet was separated for chemical analysis and made into sealed parcels vide memo. Exh.P.B. Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, drafted the complaint Exh.P.A. On which formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.A./1) was registered at Police Station New Anarkali, Lahore.
3. After investigation, Mir Zaman accused was challaned to the Court and was put to face trial.
Charge was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution produced Muhammad Quresh, S.-I. Police Station New Anarkali who had recorded the formal F.I.R. As P.W.1, Liaqat Ali H.C. P.W.2, Sajad Ahmad Khan, A.S.-I. (P.W.3) recovery witness Muhammad Nasim Moharrar H.C. (P.W.4) and Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, Investigating Officer P.W.5 and closed its case.
5. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Attributed his involvement to false implication. He also appeared as his own witness and made statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And produced Muhammad Hanif D.W.1 and Israr Ali D.W.2 in his defence. At the end of the trial the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that the place of recovery is a busy Bazaar of the city but no public witness had been associated to witness the recovery; that the place of recovery was within the jurisdiction of Police Station New Anarkali but the S.H.O. Of the said police station had not been informed nor any police official of the said police station had accompanied Muhammad Aslam, Inspector who was posted at Police Station Shandara; that the said Muhammad Aslam, Inspector had received information about the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence, he himself had drafted the complaint and subsequently himself conducted the investigation and prepared the challan which is in violation of law. As an alternate the learned counsel argues that he would feel satisfied if the appellant is punished with imprisonment already undergone.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
8. It is correct that normally the complainant himself should not be the Investigating Officer of the same case but until and unless a serious prejudice had been caused to the accused by double role of the Investigating Officer his investigation cannot be said to be illegal nor the same can be brushed aside. Learned counsel has failed to point out any ill will or motive on the part of the Investigating Officer to falsely involve the appellant in this case. Even slightest suggestion was not put to the Investigating Officer during cross-examination in this regard. Thus, the testimony of Muhammad Aslam, Inspector cannot be said to be based on mala fide. Likewise no enmity or motive could be suggested to Sajjad Ahmad Khan, A.S.-I. (P.W.3) who had made statement that Charas was recovered in his presence from the possession of the appellant and he had attested the recovery memo. Both these P.Ws. Were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but no material discrepancy or contradiction could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to discard their testimony.
9. The appellant appeared as his own witness and made statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
That he was arrested from Sasta Hotel near Data Darbar where he was staying with one Nisar Khan Pathan. But he did not opt to produce said Nisar Khan in support of his version. One Muhammad Hanif was, however, produced as D.W.1 who deposed that he was Manager of Sasta Hotel where the appellant was staying along with Nisar Khan on 28-6-2005 from where he was arrested by the police. He further deposed that he had not brought register of record rather he did not have any register of record. During cross-examination this D.W. Admitted that he had not joined the investigation with the police nor had he made any application to any higher Police Officer regarding arrest of the accused from his hotel without getting prior permission from the Illaqa Magistrate. Thus, the plea taken by the appellant when considered in the light of the statement of this D.W. Appears to be an afterthought and possibility that a fake story has been made up to create defence of the appellant, cannot be ruled out.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has in the alternate prayed that the punishment awarded to the appellant may be reduced to that of already undergone.
11. After going through the record we find that the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be said to be unreasonable.
12. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs,10, 000 or in default thereof six months' S.I. Would meet the ends of justice. With this modification in sentence, this appeal is disposed of.
Sentence reduced.