' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This appeal assails the judgment, dated 26-4-2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, convicting the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, sentencing him to imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs.50,000 and in case of default in payment of the fine, to further undergo six months' S.I. The property of the convict was ordered to be forfeited in favour of Central Government. He was, however, given the benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C.
2. Gravamen of the charge, as it appears from the P.I.R. Is that on 5-7-1997 at about 10.40 p.m., S.- I./S.H.O. Police station A-Division, Gujrat, was present along with police contingent, on police Gasht, Naka and general hold up, in G.T.S. Chowk, Gujrat City, when a bus from Rawalpindi side reached there and stopped wherefrom few passengers deboarded. One of those, whose name was subsequently disclosed, as Muhammad Tanveer son of Muhammad Bashir, on seeing police party, tried to again board the bus but the police party on account of suspicion, caught hold of him and on his search, black shopper carrying another shopper of white colour, containing heroin was recovered which weighed 1050 grams. One gram of heroin was separated from the heroin recovered and was packed into a separate parcel, for chemical examination and was taken into custody through recovery memo. Whereafter the parcel containing recovered and sample heroin along with complaint was sent to police station or registration of cases which was registered vide F.I.R. No.297 of 1997, dated 5-7-1997 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, with Police Station A-Division, Gujrat.
3. Charge against the accused/appellant was framed to which he did not plead guilty. Prosecution produced four witnesses against the appellant, whereas one Akhtar Hussain 620/C was given up.
The appellant did not produce any defence evidence.
4. P.W.1., Tariq Mehmood, H.C. Police station A-Division, Gujrat. He recorded F.I.R., on receipt of complaint on Exh.PA., sent by Muhammad Sadiq, S.-I./S.H.O. (P.W.4) carbon copy of which is Exh.PA/1. P.W.2. Khadim Hussain, 575/H.C. He deposed that during his posting as Moharrir, Police Station A-Division Gujrat, he on 9-7-1997, received sealed parcel for onward transmission to the office of chemical examiner which were deposited by him in the office, same day intact. He further stated that during the period this parcel remained with him, was not tampered. D.W.3., Muhammad Fazil, S.-I., deposed that during his posting at police station A-Division, Gujrat, he was A.S.-I. And on 5-7-1997, he along with Muhammad Sadiq, S.-I./S.H.O., Akhtar Hussain and other police officials of the same police station, joined investigation of the case. He further deposed that on personal search of Muhammad Tanveer accused/appellant present in Court, at G.T.S., Chowk, Gujrat, investigating officer found a shopper bag containing heroin, which weighed 1050 grams. J-le also stated that one gram of heroin was separated from the heroin, as sample and both of these, samples and the recovered heroin, were taken into possession, made into a sealed parcel and the recovery memo. Exh.PB. Was duly signed by him. He identified the recovered heroin Exh.P.1.
Produced present in Court. P.W.4., Muhammad Sadiq, S.-I./S.H.O., who made a statement that during his posting as S.-I./S.H.O. Police station A-Division, Gujrat, he on 5-7-1997 at about 10-40 p.m.
Along with other police employees named by him, was present in connection with general hold up in GTS Chowk, Gujrat City, when a bus from Rawalpindi side stopped in the Chowk, some passengers deboarded therefrom and accused/appellant Muhammad Tanveer son of Muhammad Bashir present in Court, on seeing the police party again tried to board the bus who was arrested with the help of other police officials and on his personal search shopper, having heroin which weighed 1050 grams, was recovered from him. He also stated that one-gram heroin, as sample was separated and both the recovered heroin, as well as, the sample were taken into possession after making it into sealed parcel through recovery memo. Exh.P.B. Duly signed by the witnesses. He also deposed that complaint Exh.P.A. Was drafted by him and was sent to the police station for registration of the case. He also arrested the accused and prepared the site plan without scale Exh.P.C. And recorded the statements of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. He stated that heroin was handed over to the Moharir for safe custody and was transmitted to the chemical examiner. Appellant was finally challaned by him This witness materially supported the prosecution version.
5. After recording of prosecution evidence, statement of accused/appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C., was recorded in which he denied the recovery of heroin, from his custody and pleaded that it was falsely planted by the police in order to show its efficiency and claimed himself to be innocent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are major discrepancies and contradictions between the statements of prosecution witnesses as such conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained on such evidence. He in this behalf referred statement of the recovery witnesses, who contradicted each other regarding surroundings of the place of recovery/place of occurrence. According to him, P.W.3 stated that place of occurrence is not surrounded by hotels or shops and those do not remained open till 11-00 p.m. As against the statement of P.W.4., who stated that police party was standing for general hold up at a central place of GTS Chowk and there are Wagons and Flying Coaches stands, nearly. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that none of the private persons at the spot, including driver of the bus, conductor or passengers who deboarded along with the appellant, was joined in the action by the police and none of them has been shown as a witness which clearly shows that the case is false.
He further contends that P.W.3 has signed the recovery memo. In Urdu whereas in the inquiry proceedings of S.S.P., he signed in English. This shows that P.W.3. Did not sign the recovery memo.
He also pointed out that the investigating officer signed the recovery memo. In Urdu while on the complaint has been signed in English and this activity goes a long way to prove that entire exercise was manoeuvred to show efficiency of the police, by falsely involving the appellant in a false case, by planting the alleged recovered heroin. Learned counsel for the appellant further elaborates his arguments by saying that the complainant could not tell number of the bus, name of the driver or conductor or that of any of the passengers and this fact also negatively reflects on the prosecution story. In the last, learned counsel for the appellant urged that punishment is very harsh and does not coincide with the quantity of recovered heroin, which is only 1050 grams and thus, prayed for reduction of sentence. He in this behalf referred to proviso to section 9-C of the of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
7. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, on behalf of the State, refuted the submissions of the appellant, supported the judgment of the trial Court and urged that case of the prosecution is proved beyond any shadow of doubt. He further adds to his arguments by saying that recovery of heroin weighing 150 grams, could not be shattered by the defence, in spite of lengthy cross- examination to the prosecution witnesses. It has also been urged on behalf of the State that there is no material contradiction between the statements of P.Ws. Learned Addl. A.-G. Denying arguments of the appellant that place of occurrence is a busy spot of city, submitted that place where the bus is alleged to have stopped is not a regular bus stand or stop which is only a temporary halting station is not surrounded by any hotel or shop. He also submits that section 103, Cr.P.C. Applicable to the case of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and as such, if there was any other person present at the time of occurrence, it was not necessary for the Investigating Officer to join in the investigation, as generally people avoid becoming witnesses, in such like cases.
8. We have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the entire record minutely. All the 4 P.Ws. Produced by the prosecution have supported recovery of 1050 grams of heroin from the appellant who have not been proved to have any malice or enmity against him. Incriminating statements of the prosecution witnesses, on Oath, proved beyond any shadow of doubt, recovery of 1050 grams of heroin from the appellant. It is not shown as to why police would make fake recovery just to show its efficiency by planting a huge quantity of heroin, value of which runs into lacs of rupees. Police if at all was under any pressure which is not proved on the file, could show it by planting lesser quantity of heroin or some other narcotic substance of cheaper value. Purchase of one kilogram heroin by a Sub-Inspector of police in Grade 15, is not imaginable and that too, for false plantation, against a person, with whom he had no enmity.
9. Contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are so minor that those neither can be considered to vitiate the trial nor those make the recovery from the appellant, doubtful. Such minor discrepancies, if any, are bound to happen by lapse of time. The incident in the case in hand took place on 5-7-1997 and statements of the P.Ws. Were recorded on 27-3-2001 nearly after four years, as such, we are not ready to bank upon such minor contradiction to set aside the judgment, impugned, which appears to be in consonance with the evidence on the file.
Similarly, signing of two different documents by P.W.3 and P.W.4., one in Urdu and the other in English, does not show that the prosecution version is false or fake. It is usual in our society especially with the persons' lesser educated that people sign in Urdu, as well as, in English. Likewise submission of the appellant that number of bus from where the appellant de-boarded, name of its driver and conductor was not noted or given by the complainant, has no substance in it because according to prosecution version a bus from Rawalpindi side came and halted in GTS Chowk whereby 4/5 persons de-boarded and one of those, the appellant, who was caught. It shows that bus after dropping those passengers left to its destination because it was not a regular bus stand.
In this manner, number of the bus and name of the driver was not noted and this is not alarming, especially when neither the bus was needed for investigation of the case nor driver or conductor were involved in the case, set up by the prosecution.
10. Recovery from the appellant of heroin weighing 1050 grams as noted above, is proved and has also been certified by the chemical examiner through his report Exh.PD., as heroin. Consistent statements of all the P.Ws. Who have repeatedly been held as reliable, like private witnesses unless those are proved to have some enmity against the accused, or any interest to depose falsely implicating of the accused, reference can be made to the cases of Maulvi Ghulam Rasool v.
Administrator Auqaf, Sindh and another (1976 SCM R 73), Sikandar and 2 others v. The State (PLD 1978 SCM R 185), Gul Nawaz v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1730), Feroze Shah v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 1470) and Mirza Shah v. The State (1992 SCM R 1475), do not leave any doubt about prosecution case and thus, we find that the trial Court has rightly relied on the statements of P.Ws. For the decision, impugned in this appeal.
11. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly concluded that charge against the appellant and has rightly convicted him, but viewing the quantity of narcotic substance (heroin) recovered from the appellant, we feel that sentence awarded is excessive. Sentence of 14 years' R.I. With fine, as awarded by the trial Court and confiscation of property of the appellant created out of narcotic money would serve the interest of justice, as well as, intents of C.N.S.A. 1997, we accordingly, alter his sentence, reduce it to 14 years' R.I.
With fine of Rs.50,000. In case of default in payment of the fine, convict will further undergo six months' S.I. His property, created out of sale of narcotics will stand forfeited in favour of the Central Government. The appellant will be entitled benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.