' ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.---This is an appeal under section 410, Cr.P.C. Read with sections 47 and 48, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 against the judgment dated 12-7-2003, handed down by Mr. Pervaiz Ali Chawla, Judge Special Court, Control of Narcotic Substances, Lahore, in case F.I.R.
No,6, dated 28-2-2000, registered under sections 9(c)/15, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station ANF, Lahore, whereby he convicted the appellants under sections 9(c)/15, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a tine of Rs,3,00,000 to each. In default thereof, they were to undergo 2 years' S.I. Each. Benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to them.
2. According to the seizure report, on the pointation of the appellant about 20 Kilograms Charas was recovered from a premises by a raiding party consisting of senior officers of Anti-Narcotics Force, who had received a tip from a spy regarding the involvement of the appellants in this business.
3. The raiding party was headed by Col. Manzer Akbar, Joint Director, ANF, Lahore, and consisted of four other members. According to the story on 28-2-2000 at 10-00 a.m. When premises under reference were raided, both the appellants resisted but were overpowered and on their pointation recovery of 20 packets of Charas each containing 1 K.g. Kept in a bag was effected.
4. An appraisement of the evidence shows that Muhammad Sarwar, Moharrir, A.S.-I., posted at Police Station ANF, Lahore registered the formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA) on the complaint sent by Muhammad Riaz . Soomro, Assistant Director ANF, Lahore. He also received the case property sent by Muhammad Riaz Sumro which he stored in the Malkhana and on 2-3-2000, he handed over the case property to Abdul Ghafoor (P.W.2) for sending it to the office of Chemical Examiner.
Muhammad Riaz Sumro, who was the seizing and Investigating Officer, supported the prosecution version with respect to the way the recovery was effected and the par.Cels prepared. Mehmood Ahmed, Constable was another eye-witness, who corroborated the factum of the recovery from the appellants.
5. In their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C., the case of the appellants was one of denial.
Anyway, according to the statement of Muhammad Ashfaq on the question as to why this case was made against him, he stated:-- "I do not know anything about this case. I am a milk seller. I purchase the milk from Samsani Khuhi and sell at Model Town, in various houses. From a person I had to receive the money of the milk. I do not know my co-accused Saifullah."
' Whereas according to Saifullah, the reason was:-- "I was an accused in the case F.I.R. No,277, Police Station, Baghbanpura, dated 6-7-1989, for offence under section 302, P.P.C. In which I was tried and acquitted. The copy of the F.I.R. Is Exh.DB Due to my enmity of murder, I have been got falsely implicated in this case by my enemies. I also rely upon Exh.DA, the copy of the statement of Mehmood Ahmed, Constable, Police Station, ANF, Lahore, recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And supplied to me for confrontation."
6. No evidence was produced by them in defence nor did they opt to appear as their own witnesses.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants took us through the evidence. He vehemently argued that the place of recovery did not at all exist as it has not been given any number but only a description of a garage has been given, whereas the site-plan Exh.PE gives a different picture.
8. It is further stated that the Charas was planted against the appellants; that the recovery was fake; that the witnesses from the locality were not produced; that in case the recovery had been effected the prosecution could not have stayed at the spot for so long. Another objection was that whereas the recovery had been effected on 28-2-2000, the parcel, according to the Constable, was delivered on 2-3-2000 for sending it to the office of Chemical Examiner. But according to the report of the Chemical Examiner, he received the parcel on 22-3-2000 and there was no explanation for this delay.
9. Exh.PE is the site-plan and this is seen. This was not a house and looked to be a godown having a room and Veranda and, therefore, calling it a garage was not an unusual description of the same.
It may not be having a municipal number and, perhaps, this was the reason that none was given.
10. It is further argued that this place did not belong to the appellants. They never said so about this place in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. And regarding recovery from them at the said premises ' there was just a bald denial. These are all official witnesses, who have carried the raid, effected the seizure and arrested the appellants. But there is nothing on record to suggest any against any of the P.Ws. Learned counsel tried to build up a story that one of the appellants was a milk seller who sold milk to ANF Officers. And as they were not happy with his delivery, he was implicated. This story is not supported by any evidence nor was any such plea taken by the appellants during or before trial in this connection.
11. During the cross-examination suggestions were given to P.Ws. To the effect that the recovery may have been effected in a different manner from his place, but nothing has come on record to suggest that the premises from where the recovery was effected, in fact, did not exist or was an imaginary place as was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants.
12. We find that P.W.4, who was the main witness, was subjected to unusually lengthy cross- examination. But we find the appellants side was not able to secure much benefit out of the same nor have they been able to establish that the premises of recovery did not exist or was imaginary or was not owned by the appellants.
13. After hearing the both sides, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt of a huge quantity of Charas recovered on the pointation of the appellants.
14. Lastly, it was argued that the appellants may have been working as agents and not as principals. That they were poor persons and were unable to pay the huge amount of fine and the sentence given to them was anyhow harsh.
15. When the arguments were about to conclude the learned counsel for the appellants prayed that he be allowed to move an application for producing additional evidence on behalf of the appellants to show that the premises under reference did not belong to them. This plea being taken now is too late in the day and has come when we are about to give a judgment and it thus cannot be entertained.
16. Once a case beyond 10 kilograms is established against anybody, the law provides no flexibility in the matter of sentence of imprisonment and it cannot be less than life imprisonment which is maintained under the circumstances of the case. Regarding the quantum of fine of Rs,3,00,000 against each of the appellants, we would use our discretion for reducing the same in view of the abject poverty of the appellants explained to us by the learned counsel for the appellants. We, therefore, reduce this amount to Rs,30,000 in case of each appellant or in default thereof. They are to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months each.