' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 14th July, 2003 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Criminal Appeal No,312 of 2003 filed by petitioner has been disposed of.
2, Facts in brief leading to filing of instant petition for leave to appeal are that petitioner Surraya Bibi was tried in case registered vide F.1.R., dated 27th September. 2002, under sections 6/9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at Police Station, Shadbagh, Lahore. It is stated in the F.I.R. That on 27th September, 2002 one Sarwar, accused in another case under sections 6/9 of the Act, during interrogation disclosed that Charas recovered from him was taken by him from one Siraj Khan alias Nanha son of Ghulam Nabi and he could point out the house from where further Charas could be recovered as such on the said disclosure, Dost Muhammad, S.-I. Along with other police officials accompanied Sarwar accused and reached at Imam Ghazali Road, Makhanpura (Lahore). Sarwar accused pointed out a lady going in main bazaar and told that she is the wife of Siraj Khan alias Nanha. She was having in her right hand a Tora (bag) of plastic. She was brought under control and from the said Tora (bag) of plastic, 6 packets of Charas each bag weighing 1 Kg. Charas were recovered. The said lady disclosed her name as Surraya Bibi wife of Siraj Khan. The Investigating Officer after complying with legal formalities submitted challan before the trial Court where prosecution produced five witnesses to prove the charge against the petitioner. Learned trial Court examined the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. However, she did not opt to make her statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produced any evidence in her defence. Learned trial Court, after having gone through the evidence available on record, convicted the petitioner under sections 6/9(c) of the Act and sentenced her to ten years R.I. With direction to her to pay Rs,100,000 (Rupees one lac) as fine or in default whereof to undergo further one year's S.I. Benefit of section 382-s, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to her. Petitioner feeling dissatisfied from the judgment of the trial Court, preferred appeal before the High Court, which has been disposed of by means of impugned judgment whereby her sentence of 10 years R.I., was reduced to that of five years, whereas sentence of fine was, however, maintained. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that factum of recovery of Charas from the possession of the petitioner accused seems to be improbable in absence of confidence-inspiring and coherent evidence, to substantiate that how it is conceivable that the petitioner being the wife of Siraj Khan alias Nanha, who allegedly deals in the trafficking of Charas would pass near from the 'Mukhbar' i.e, co-accused as well as police party, particularly at the time of when they were heading towards her house for effecting recovery of Charas at the instance of Sarwar, co-accused.
Therefore, according to him a false case has been registered against accused petitioner at the behest of the police who has animosity with the petitioner's family on account of dispute between her husband and one Pervaiz from whom former had purchased a house and said Pervaiz on having failed to get possession of the house with the connivance of P.W. Dost Muhammad got registered a false case. As he is friend of said Pervaiz.
4. On the other hand Raja Abdur Rehman, learned Assistant Advocate-General appeared on Court notice and stated that prosecution has successfully established guilt against the petitioner by producing overwhelming incriminating evidence and the plea being raised by the petitioner of false implication, being without merit, deserves to be disbelieved because there is no material on record to substantiate the dispute between the petitioner's husband and Pervaiz and his relationship with P.W. Dost Muhammad, S.-I.
5. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the record carefully. It may be noted that recovery of 6 Kgs. Charas from the possession of the petitioner conveniently cannot be denied in view of the fact that there is no direct enmity between petitioner or her husband and the police, nor the story of having purchased house by the husband of petitioner from one Pervaiz, who has friendship with P.W. Dost Muhammad, has been proved on record by producing documentary evidence. Inasmuch as to rebut the prosecution case on this score, it was quite convenient for petitioner to prove such facts by entering into witness box. However, fact remains that there is no direct enmity between petitioner's husband and police, who registered the case against her during course whereof a huge quantity of Charas was recovered. Therefore, this fact alone is sufficient to overrule the possibility of false implication of the accused.
6. Learned counsel stated that the recovery has been effected in the Bazar but no civilian witness was associated by the Investigating Officer with a view to overrule the possibility of the false implication of the petitioner in the case.
Suffice it to observe that police witnesses are as good as civilian witnesses unless it is established on record that police witness, who appeared against the accused, has personal motive/mala fides to involve him/her in the commission of the offence. Reliance in this behalf can safely be placed on Muhammad Naeem v. The State 1992 SCM R 1617.
' As it has been pointed out hereinabove that petitioners have failed to point out enmity with the police, therefore, no case is made out for interference on this score as well.
7. Learned counsel lastly contended that petitioner is a lady, having five children and even presently she is in the family way, therefore, sentence awarded to her may be reduced reasonably.
' Request so made by him has been opposed by the other side. Besides it, no case of reduction in the quantum of sentence has been made out because the learned High Court has already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence of 10 years' R.I. To that of 5 years.
8. We may point out here that in the cases pertaining to offence of narcotics, it has been seen that the drug peddlers, to achieve their nefarious objects, have adopted obnoxious device by engaging womenfolk and the children and through them crimes is being committed and ultimately mercy is sought against such accused on humanitarian grounds, etc. Therefore, to curb such menace, Courts are required to award adequate punishment instead of showing sympathy on the ground that accused is woman or a child, otherwise, the actual accused involved in such heinous crime, which is against the society, would be encouraged and carriers would also be freely available to promote the crime with the hope that after spending small period in the prison, they would be set at liberty despite of committing heinous crime of drug trafficking.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed and leave declined.