' ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J - Rahim Dad appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 17-1-2002 in case F.I.R. No,252, dated 23-4-2001 registered at Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad and sentenced to five years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,30,000 in default whereof to further undergo imprisonment for one year. He was given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 23-4-2001 at about 12-15 p.m. Ali Asghar S-I. Along with other police officials on a spy information apprehended the accused and on his personal search 5 K.Gs. Charas was recovered wrapped in a white colour shopper in his right hand.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as five witnesses. Abdul Hameed A.S-I. P.W.l recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./l on the basis of complainant Exh.P.A. Ahmad Nawaz P.W.2 deposed about the safe custody of the sealed parcel containing Charas in the Malkhana of the police station. Muhammad Arshad P.W.3 transmitted the sealed parcel said to contain Charas to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. Muhammad Saleem P.W.4 is the witness of recovery. Ali Asghar S-I. P.W.5 is the complainant and investigator of the case. The learned S.P.P. After tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.B. Closed the case for prosecution. The accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied all "the allegations and recovery of Charas. He did not opt to appear as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. But produced Arshad Mehmood D.W.l and Eisa Khan D.W.2 in his defence.
4. The basic arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant were that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Were not followed although these ought to have been followed in the case of present type where a raid was conducted at a house. That ten grams of Charas which was separated was sent to the Chemical Analyst belatedly and without the induction of witnesses of the Mohallah in the matter of recovery. That therefore the factum of recovery had to be taken with skepticism. It was further stated that he was not a previous convict. That he was resident of Kohat and had come to visit the family where the raid had taken place and where the recoveries were effected. That merely because he worked in Kohat gave a presumption adverse to him although any other inmate of the house from where the recovery has been effected may have been the actual culprit.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. We feel that there is nothing to suggest any bias against the official witnesses who deposed against -the appellant. Therefore, their evidence has to be,given credit. But as the recovery was effected from a place where the appellant was visiting and by keeping in view the contention of the learned counsel in this respect it will be proper to tread on the path of safe administration of justice. We have been told that the appellant has already undergone substantial part of the sentence since his arrest on 23-4-2001.
We, therefore, while Upholding the order of conviction against him reduce the sentence to one undergone. While we maintain the sentence of fine and in lieu thereof he will undergo simple Imprisonment for three months.