Muhammad Alam Khan, J.--This is an appeal against conviction and sentence filed by the appellant Mateen Khan against the judgment dated 23.10.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (CNS) Peshawar Camp D.I. Khan in case FIR No, 2 dated 27.3.2007 under Section 9 CNSA 1997, registered at Police Station, ANF D.I. Khan, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 9(c) CNSA and sentenced to eight years R.I. and a fine amounting to Rs, 50,000/-, in default to suffer three months simple imprisonment.
2. Brief facts of the ease are that on receipt of information that narcotics was to be smuggled in a Suzuki Car towards Punjab on 27.3.2007, Maqbool Ahmad Khan Inspector alongwith police contingent of ANF had laid picket on Bannu-Dera road near CRBC Canal when a Suzuki Car No, MNT-1703 in area colour came which was stopped for checking. The driver disclosed his names as Mateen Khan and when checked the motor, four packets of wet opium from right side of its door and one packet of Charas from left side of the front door were recovered duly wrapped in brown colour solution tape. When weighed, the Charas came out 500 grams while the opium stood four kilograms. Ten grams from each of the Charas and Opium were separated for chemical analysis while the remaining were sealed into different parcels. A sum of Rs, 600/-, a mobile set and registration of the Car were recovered during personal search of the accused who was accordingly arrested in the case vide FIR ibid.
3. After completion of investigation, the accused was forwarded to the Court for trial where he did not plead guilt to the charge and claimed trial. He was formally charged sheeted.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced five witnesses, where after statement of the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded, but neither he produced any defence witness nor opted to be examined on oath in terms of Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge, on weighing the material, brought on record found the accused guilty of the offence charged with and on conviction sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment of conviction is not based on correct premises and liable to be struck down, because despite the availability of private persons on the spot, no one from them was cited as a witness to the alleged recovery; that the recovery had not been made from the direct physical possession of the appellant and that there are material contradictions in statements of the P.Ws. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is harsh and is liable to be reduced.
6. The learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State supported the impugned judgment on the grounds, inter-alia, that a huge quantity of contraband Charas and opium have been recovered from the secret cavities of the Car which was being driven by the appellant at the time of occurrence and it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that he had no knowledge about keeping of the contraband Charas and opium in the hidden cavities of the motorcar in question. The offence being heinous is damaging the whole society and the appellant deserves no leniency. Learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently resisted the request of the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of the sentence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. After considering the arguments advanced at the bar and going, through the record of the case, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of conviction is the result of correct appreciation of evidence brought on record and need not to be interfered with. A huge quantity of contraband narcotics were recovered from the secret cavities of the car in question which was being driven by the appellant at the relevant time. The argument that no independent witness was cited to the alleged recovery is without substance as the official witnesses are as good witnesses as general public till such time that any animosity is proved on record against them. On perusal of the record we find that there is no evidence against the appellant to prove that he is either a drug trafficker, previous convict or previously involved in such like activities. Thus, his case can be considered for reduction of the sentence in view of the judgment handed down in the case of "Nazar Muhammad Vs. The State" reported in (1986 P.Cr.L.J. 2065).
9. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. However, the quantum of sentence seems to be harsh and needs to be reviewed. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment from eight years to four years R.I. and sentence of fine from Rs, 50,000/- to Rs, 20,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
Above are the reasons for our'short order of even date.