' KAMAL MUSTAFA BOKHARY, J.--- Muhammad Jameel son of Haji Abdul Qadeer, resident of Multan City, was tried for sale and possession of heroin. Malik Muhammad Aslam, Magistrate 1st Class, Multan, on 16-7-1986, convicted him under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The convict has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence.
2. On 22-5-1985 at about 11-30 p.m., a patrol party of seven persons was on duty at Chowk Kumharwala, Multan City to check intoxicants when an informer told them that appellant was selling heroin while standing in front of the house of his mother in 'Z' block of new Multan. Dilawar All P.W., A.S.I., of Task Force accompanied by six others proceeded in a jeep and stopped near a house.
Muhammad Ibrahim P.W., a Police Constable with Task Force, was deputed as fake customer with a currency note of Rs,50. He approached the appellant from whom he purchased one gram of heroin on payment of Rs,50. He passed signal upon which the raid party apprehended the appellant. On his personal search one currency note of Rs,50 and four grams of heroin wrapped in a Khaki colour paper were recovered from right pocket of his shirt. The currency note and one gram of heroin purchased from the appellant and four grams of heroin recovered from his person, were taken into possession. On a written report of Dilawar Ali P.W. A.S.I., sent on 23-5-1985 at 0-30 hours a formal F.I.R. Was registered at Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan on the same day at 1-00 a.m. After investigation the appellant was challaned in Court.
3. At the trial prosecution examined four witnesses. Muhammad Ibrahim P.W.2, Foot Constable, deposed that on being deputed for the purpose he purchased one gram of heroin from the appellant for Rs,50. Muhammad Aslam P.W.3, (Inspector), F.I.O. Task Force and Dilawar Ali, P.W.4, A.S.I. With the Task Force corroborated Muhammad Ibrahim. Both of them deposed that Muhammad Ibrahim was deputed as a fake customer who after purchasing one gram of heroin for Rs,50 from appellant gave signal upon which the raid party apprehended the appellant and recovered four grams of heroin and one marked currency note of Rs,50 which were secured.
Dilawar Ali P.W., also deposed that he investigated the case and challaned the appellant in Court.
The report, Exh.P.F. Of the Chemical Examiner disclosed that the sample packets contained heroin.
4. The appellant did not plead guilty to the charges and denied the allegations against him. He stated that he was falsely involved because he refused to become informer for the raid party.
5. We have been taken through the entire evidence in this case and have heard lengthy arguments addressed by learned counsel for the appellant. The raid party was at a distance of one and a half mile when an informer told them that a person was selling heroin in front of the house of his mother in 'Z' Block of New Multan. Neither description of the appellant was given by the informer nor the number of house in front of which appellant was alleged to be present was given to the raid party.
None of the prosecution witnesses could give the number of house when examined by the trial Court. There was no light outside house of the appellant which could enable the raid party to write memos. At the spot. Muhammad Aslam P.W.3, Inspector in cross-examination stated that all the memos. And entire proceedings were in his hand and not in the hand of Dilawar Ali P.W., but in further cross-examination admitted that the writing of the documents was different from the signature of Dilawar Ali. Dilawar Ali P.W., deposed in cross-examination that the complaint (Exh.P.E.) was written by him in his own hand while the recovery memos. were in the handwriting of Allah Yar, Head Constable, who was not examined by the prosecution. This was a material contradiction.
Again Allah Yar was not examined by the prosecution. During investigation Dilawar Ali, P.W, prepared site plan but did not show number of house or block "Z" from where the appellant was apprehended with heroin and instead in the plan Exp.P.D. Block 'E' was mentioned. The appellant was alleged to be present in front of the house of his mother selling heroin and sold one gram of herion to fake customer, Muhammad Ibrahim P.W, but when apprehended four grams of heroin contained in one khaki paper was recovered without any scale which on the face of it appears unnatural because if the appellant was selling heroin he would normally carry it in packets of one gram each. Zulfiqar Ali, P.W. Constable, deposed that he received two parcels from Dilawar Ali, P.W.
On 15-6-1985 and after getting a docket he delivered the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, Multan on the same day. In cross-examination Dilawar Ali P.W. Stated that he did not give parcels to Zulfiqar Ali, P.W. On 15-6-1985. The heroin was recovered from the appellant in the early hours of 23-5-1985 but the parcels were allegedly given to Zulfiqar Ali, P.W. On 15-6-1985 and the prosecution did not disclose as to where the parcels were kept during all this time. The perusal of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the proceedings were fictitious or were taken in hap hazard manner which creates doubt in favour of the appellant. The sale and recovery of heroin from appellant is not proved in the circumstances of this case. We find that prosecution failed to bring home guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
6. For aforementioned reasons the appeal is allowed, conviction and I sentences of the appellant are set aside. His bail bonds are discharged.