' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---This is an appeal against conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge, Special Court, C.N.S, Peshawar Camp at D.I.Khan vide judgment dated 24-7-2007 in case F.I.R. No,14 date 7-12-2005 under section 9 C.N.S.A. 1997 of police station, ANF D.I.Khan,' whereby the appellant, Muhammad Kabal Khan, has been convicted under section 9(c) C.N.S.A. For having been found in possession of 2.800 Kgs of raw Charas and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of rupees fifty thousands, in default to undergo two months' simple imprisonment.
2. It was on 7-12-2005 at 1400 hours that Inspector Ghiyas Ahmad along with party of Anti-Narcotic Force was present for checking narcotics near Waziristan hotel on Dera-Bannu road when a Bus No,BUB9599 coming from Bannu to Karachi came which was stopped for checking. A person wearing a white Chadar was found in suspicious condition who disclosed his name as Muhammad Kabal Khan son of Muhammad Gul Khan, Caste Peeran, resident of Hassan Khel Khairaki, Tehsil and District Bannu having a shopping bag of white colour in his lap. When checked, the bag contained three packets of `Charas Gardah', two weighing 1200 'grams each while the third weighed 400 grams. Ten grams from each were separated for chemical analysis while the remaining were sealed in three different parcels. On personal search of the accused, a computerized NIC and Rs,500/00 in cash were recovered from the front pocket of his shirt. He was accordingly apprehended vide F.I.R. Ibid.
3. After completion of investigation, complete challan was put against the accused in Court where he was formally charge sheeted but he did not plead guilty to the charge. The prosecution in order to prove its case against him examined four witnesses whereafter statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded but he professed innocence. However, neither he wished to be examined on oath, nor produced any defence evidence. The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties in the light of evidence brought on record found the accused guilty of the offence charged with and on conviction sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the impugned conviction and sentence are not based on legal footing as despite the availability of independent private witnesses in the Bus in question, the alleged recovery of contraband Charas was witnessed by the official witnesses which is against the mandatory provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
5. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the sentence recorded by the learned trial Court are not only harsh but excessive also and prayed for reduction in the same.
6. The learned Deputy Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State resisted the appeal on the ground that a huge quantity of contraband `Gardah Charas' has been recovered from the direct and conscious possession of the appellant and that the official witnesses are as good witnesses as public unless any animosity on their part is proved by the defence.
7. After giving due consideration to the respective arguments of learned counsel for the parties and carefully examining the record. We have come to conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is based on sound footings. A huge quantity of contraband `Gardah Charas' has been recovered from the direct and physical possession of the appellant for which he has failed to give any plausible explanation. The Forensic Science Laboratory report is in pisitive. The testimony of official witnesses, in such like cases, cannot be doubted unless any ill will or personal grudge is established on record. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution had duly proved its case against the appellant and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted him.
8. However, being a first offender and there is nothing on record about his previous involvement in such like offences, the quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant seems to be harsh and deserves to be dealt with leniently in view of the judgment reported in the case of Nazar Muhammad v. The State reported in 1986 PCr.LJ 2065.
9. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, this appeal is dismissed, but the sentence of five years is reduced to three years R.I. And the fine of rupees fifty thousand is reduced to rupees ten thousand, in default whereof the appellant shall suffer three months' simple imprisonment. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall remain intact.
' Above are the reasons for our short order of even date.
Sentence reduced