' RUSTAM ALI MALIK, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 21-12-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court for Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Faisalabad whereby the accused/ appellant was convictec under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and was sentenced to four years R.I. And also to payment of fine of Rs,10,000. It was directed that in case of non-payment of fine, he will undergo six months S.I., for possessing 560 grams of Charas.
2. The case against the accused/ appellant is based on F.I.R. No,237/2000 registered on 19-5-2000 in P.S Gulberg, Faisalabad under sections 3/4 of the Prohibition Order, 1979. The formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B.
Was registered on the basis of complaint sent by Muhammad Mumtaz Inspector/S.H.O. According to F.I.R., during the investigation of F.I.R. No,236/2000 Raza accused, who was in custody, disclosed that he and Muhammad Jamil had purchased 5 Kgs Charas from Peshawar and that 750 grams of Charas had been taken away by Muhammad Jamil and who was selling the same near Rajbah adjacent to Government College ground and that he can lead to his apprehension. Hence, on the pointation of Raza aforesaid, the accused i.e, Muhammad Jamil was apprehended and on search 560 grams of Charas was recovered from the folder of his Shalwar, 10 grams of which was separated and sealed and the case was registered against him under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition Order, 1979 and also under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
3. As a result of investigation, the challan was submitted against the accused. He was formally charged by the learned trial Court on 3-1-2001 under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and to which he pleaded not guilty and, the. Prosecution was thus asked to produce its evidence.
4. The prosecution has examined in this case as many as 5 witnesses. Out of whom, P. W.1 is Muhammad Ilyas, Constable who is a formal witness. However, P.W.2 is Zaheer Ahmad, Head Constable who was a member of the raiding party which was headed by P.W.5 Muhammad Mumtaz, Inspector/S.H.O. Both of them deposed on the same lines as mentioned in the F.I.R. And proved the recovery of 560 grams of Charas from the accused.
5. P.W.3 Amanullah, A.S-I. Had recorded the formal F.I.R. While P.W.4 Mukhtar Ahmad, Head Constable who was Moharrar at the relevant time kept the sealed parcels in the Malkhana and had then sent the same through Muhammad Riaz, Constable to the office of Chemical Examiner.
6. The learned Prosecutor tendered the report of Chemical Examiner in evidence as Exh.P.D. The statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded on 4-12-2001 and wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances. In reply to the question as to why this case against him and why the P. Ws. Had deposed against him, the accused replied that he was taken into custody from his residence and had been falsely involved in this case by the police and also that all the witnesses were police officials and that no private witness had been associated in the alleged recovery proceedings and the police officials being subordinate to the I.O. Had deposed against him. However, he did not make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. But stated that he will produce evidence in defence. He also took the plea that he is a Government servant and cannot imagine to commit such like offence.
7. The accused examined in his defence D.W.1 Habib Ullah and who stated that about 1-1/2 years ago the police came to their street after `Fajar' prayer and arrested Muhammad Jamil accused from his house but no reason for the arrest of the accused was given by the police. He stated that Muhammad Jamil is an employee of Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad. During cross-examination he stated that he did not know whether there was any enmity between the accused and the police.
He also stated that he had not made any statement before the police nor he had gone to the Police Station and that he was also not called by the police. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused has not mentioned as to what enmity the police had with him so as to falsely implicate him in a case of this nature.
8. On the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
9. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
10. The police officials in such like cases are as good witnesses as the members of public at large. It is not understandable as to why the I.O. Would like to implicate an innocent person in a case of this nature, particularly when he was not having any enmity or any animosity with him. It is also not understandable as to why other P.Ws. Would join hands with the I.O. To falsely involve the accused in this case. There is no inconsistency or contradiction in the prosecution evidence on record and which is sufficient to prove the charge against the accused. The report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.P.D.) is positive for Charas and which is an intoxication. As such we are A inclined to uphold the conviction recorded against the accused/appellant by the learned trial Court under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. However, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he will be satisfied if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused is reduced, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case. After hearing his arguments on this point and also after hearing the learned counsel for the State, we are inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the case in this case to that already undergone.
11. In view of what has been stated above, we uphold the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the accused/appellant under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. However, we feel under the circumstances B of the case that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the accused in this case would serve the ends of justice, therefore we reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused in this case to that already undergone. However, we uphold the sentence of fine of Rs,10,000. In case of default in payment of fine, the accused/appellant will undergo S.I. For six months.
12. With the above modification in the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the accused/appellant is dismissed.
Sentence reduced.