' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- The appellant, through the instant appeal by leave of the Court, which has arisen out of a Jail Petition 41(S) of 2003 has challenged the judgment of the Federal Shariat court whereby his conviction and sentence under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was maintained.
2. Relevant portion of the leave granting order whereby the necessary facts have also been given reads as under:- "(2) Precisely stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to tip off, a raid was conducted by the police party after having search warrants from Area Magistrate and resultantly the petitioner was apprehended and on whose pointation heroin weighing 2,500 grams was recovered. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was sent up for trial and on conclusion whereof he was convicted and sentenced as per detail mentioned hereinabove.
(3) I have carefully examined the entire record and perused the judgment impugned with care and caution. It has been observed that defence version and evidence led in support thereof have not been kept in juxtaposition to that of prosecution evidence which aspect of the matter needs consideration. It is to be noted that a criminal case by means of F.I.R. Bearing No,37 of 1994 dated 31-1-1994 under sections 452, 141, 342, 384, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Was got registered against S.H.O.
Pakpattan Sharif at the direction of learned High Court and after accepting the writ petition, the petitioner had played an active role who was also cited as witness therein. There is no denying the fact that a case against the petitioner was got registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the order, subsequent to registration of the case against police of Pakpattan Sharif including its S.H.O. It transpired from statement of the witnesses that police had stressed time and again to withdraw the said cases to save the petitioner from rigours of trial which, however, could not be done. The decoy witness, by whom the heroin was allegedly purchased, had also investigated the case which speaks a volume about its transparency and fairness. The defence version has not been ,- examined in its true perspective, which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In my view, the entire prosecution and defence evidence need reappraisal in the light of scenario as mentioned hereinabove as it would be in the interest of justice. In my view, it is a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted to ensure safe administration of justice. "
3. Learned counsel for the appellant stressed the plea, as noted in the leave granting order that the police being inimical towards the appellant by referring to the criminal cases registered against the police of the said police station under sections 452, 341, 342, 384, 148 and 149, P.P.C. And also he being a witness in the case against the police. He further submitted that the wife of the appellant has also filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court when he was kept in illegal detention by the police and while the police facing difficulty to explain the detention of the appellant, he was involved falsely in the instant case and also some other cases, most of them of the identical nature i,e, under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. He has also submitted that the appellant being a school teacher cannot be expected .To be involved in such-like cases.
He has also referred to the documents produced in defence particularly the writ petition and the order of the Court thereon and also by making reference to the institution of the civil suit for damages against the police by raiding his house illegally and harassing the appellant and his family
4. We have examined the evidence of the prosecution in juxtaposition to that of the evidence produced in defence mostly in the form of documents i,e, the certified copy of the writ petition instituted by his friend Tufail and his nephew Ijaz, the former was also involved in baseless cases along with the appellant, and the certified copy of the order thereon. The prosecution evidence produced being a discrepant apart has been furnished by witnesses who are inimical towards the appellant and highly interested in the prosecution of the case. The eyewitnesses by whom the heroin was allegedly purchased from the appellant had also investigated the case which speaks a volume about its transparency and fairness. The documentary evidence placed on the file in defence sufficiently demonstrates that the appellant was harassed to such an extent that he was compelled to file the suit for damages and writ petition by his wife for his release from the illegal detention of the police. The police was so much poised against the appellant that he was involved in so many other cases. The grievance of the police was further aggravated when the appellant was continuously insisting on the investigation of the case registered against the police by some other Investigating Agency and in which respect the High Court was approached and intimately the case was got transferred to the Crime Range Police for investigation. Looking at the evidence both of the prosecution and that of the defense, it can safely be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and while giving benefit of doubt, the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
5. Resultantly while accepting the appeal, the judgments and orders of conviction and sentences are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. It is directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.