1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.-Criminal Jail Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Special Court-I (Control of Narcotic Substances), Karachi dated 13-6-2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted in Crime No,65/2005 of P.S. ANF-II, Karachi under sections 6 and 9 of C.N.S, Act, 1997 to undergo R.I. For four years and pay fine of Rs,50,000 in default of payment of fine he shall suffer R.I. For three months with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. ' The facts leading to the appeal are that on 28th December, 2005 officials of ANF apprehended the appellant from Jinnah International Airport lounge, Karachi along with passport and Air ticket while he was proceeding abroad. The officials of the ANF had recovered heroin power being 1250 grams concealed in secret cavity of briefcase in presence of the witness the seizure memo. Was present vide Exhibit P/1, the recovered property narcotics was sent to chemical examiner the report is positive vide Exhibit P/6 and the appellant was challaned to face trial.
3. ' The charge was framed and prosecution examined P.W.1 Khalid-ud-Din as Exhibit 6 and PC Akhtar Iqbal as Exhibit 7, and closed the side of the prosecution. The appellant in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. Denied to have committed the charged offence and pleaded that he was innocent.
4. ' No evidence was produced in rebuttal however, two prosecution witnesses were examined to substantiate the plea. The appellant has contested that the learned trial Judge had failed to take note of the contradictions in the statement of complainant SIP Khaliduddin . And PC Akhtar Iqbal.
5. They were on patrolling duty and there was no occasion on their party to reach in the lounge of Quaid-e-Azam International Airport. The recovered narcotics has been foisted upon him, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon as they were not the independent witnesses and the chemical examiner's report did not support the version of the complainant regarding weight of the sample. Learned State counsel has contended that the prosecution witnesses are consistent, and has produced unimpeachable evidence therefore, impugned judgment does not call for interference.
6. ' We have gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses. The complainant Khaliduddin deposed that on the fateful day he was posted as SIP at ANF-II Muhammad Ali Society.
7. During patrolling along with his staff reached at Airport turning Karachi received spy information that the appellant in possession of narcotics was present at Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, and apprehended the accused with a briefcase, on search of the briefcase, heroin powder of light brown colour kept in secret cavities of briefcase was recovered. On weighing found to be 1250 grams, then drew one sample from the recovered property, the rest of the property was sealed on the spot. In presence of the Mashirs, under Mashirnama Exhibit P/1. The sample drawn was sent to chemical examiner, the report Exhibit P/3 was received during the course of investigation. The appellant on interrogation disclosed that the recovered property was delivered to him by Haji Hyder and Ashfaq resident of Attack for onward delivery at Dubai. His testimony was not shaken in the cross-examination. In respect of the material particulars relating to the time, place, quantum of recovered narcotics, presence of Mashirs on the spot sample drawn and the case property produced in Court as Article A. Out of the Mashirs of recovery PC Akhtar Iqbal corroborated the testimony of the complainant deposed that he along with other members of the police party was patrolling in official mobile reached at Karachi Airport where appellant was intercepted, heroin powder was secured from his briefcase which was sealed, he had materially support the prosecution version and corroborated the testimony of the complainant.
8. ' We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced and examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses supported by the chemical examiner's report. There is no cavil to the effect that the recovery of the narcotics was secured from the possession of the appellant which was sent to the chemical examiner there appears no discrepancy in the oral evidence vis-a-vis the case property and chemical examiner's report. The appellant has also sought reduction in the sentence awarded to him on the ground of mercy, it cannot be entertained in view of the dictum laid down in 2008 SCM R 825.
9. ' Upon appraisal of the entire evidence we are of the view that no case is made out requiring interference in the impugned judgment therefore, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby maintained, the fine is reduced from Rs, 50,000 to Rs,10,000, in default of payment of fine the appellant shall suffer R.I. For one month more.
10. ' With the above modification in impugned judgment appeal was dismissed vide short order dated 13-11-2008. These are the reasons for the same.