The appellant, Iqbal Hussain, aged 44 years was convicted by the Special Judge Customs, Lahore, of an offence under section 156(1) (89) of the Customs Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. He has filed his appeal against his conviction and sentence.
2. According to the prosecution; on 15-9-1976, A.S.I., Ziaul Haq (P.W.3) of Police Station Naulakha, Lahore, organized a raiding party and took position near the Zamindara Hotel on Mcleod Road, Lahore. At about 3 p.m., the appellant was seen coming from the direction of the Railway Station.
He had an attache case with him. He was held .Up. On search of the attache case, 745 wrist watches, 48 metal chains and 20 straps were recovered. On inquiry, he was unable to explain his possession of such a large number of watches, chains and straps. Consequently a case under section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act was registered against him.
3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. He stated that on the day in question, he was travelling in a rickshaw together with another person. The rickshaw was stopped by the police. On this, the other person ran away leaving his attache case in the rickshaw. He disowned the watches and straps. He produced two witnesses in his defence.
4. The case of the prosecution against the appellant rests mainly on the testimony of A.S.I., Ziaul Haq (P.W.3) and Head Constable Muhammad Inayat (P.W.2). Both these witnesses stated that the appellant was seen coming from the direction of the Railway Station on foot. He had an attache case with him. On opening the attache case, a large number of wrist watches and straps were recovered. There were two other witnesses, stated to be the members of the public, who were stated by the prosecution to be present at the time of the recovery but they were not produced by the prosecution. It may however be mentioned that neither A.S.I. Ziaul Haq (P.W.3) nor Head Constable Muhammad Inayat (P.W.2) had any motive whatsoever to falsely implicate the appellant. They were not even acquainted with the appellant before A the day in question. Apart from that the recovery of such a large quantity of watches and straps corroborates their testimony for it is incredible that two police officers would procure property of great value for planting upon a person who was a complete stranger to them.
5. The two defence witnesses do not inspire confidence. Muhammad Hanif (P.W.2) was an employee of the Post Office together with the appellant. He merely testified to the good character of the appellant. Ch. Nemat Ali (D.W.1) was a rickshaw driver. -He did support the appellant's case but for the reason already given, I am unable to accept that A.S.I. Ziaul Haq (P.W.3) or Head Constable Muhammad Inayat (P.W.2) would perjure themselves against the appellant.
6. For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that the appellant was found in possession of a very large number of watches and straps. Admittedly, they were all of foreign origin. The appellant did not offer any explanation with regard to the manner he got them. He was thus rightly convicted by the Special Judge of an offence under section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act. The question of sentence, however, requires consideration. The incident took place about nine years ago. I do not think that it will be proper to send the appellant back to jail to undergo the un expired portion of his sentence. I, therefore, reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.