' The allegation against appellant, Qamaruddin, is that he was found in possession of 30 grams of heroin. He was tried by Mr. Zafar I qbal Gill, Magistrate Section 30, Lahore and convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and is sentenced to undergo R.I. For three years with five stripes and fine of Rs, five hundred, in default to suffer R.I. For three months more.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 21-7-1989 complainant Zamin Abbas, apprehended the appellant and recovered 30 grams of heroin. The sample was taken and sealed. Complaint was drafted and sent to police station for registration of case. After completing investigation challan was submitted against the accused.
3. Charge under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order was framed to which appellant pleaded not guilty.
4. Prosecution examined 4 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Muhammad Yaqub, Head Constable, P.W.2 Munir Ahmad, Head Constable, P.W.3 Muhammad Siddique, A.S.I. And P.W.4 Zamin Abbas, Inspector.
5. P.W.1 Muhammad Yaqub has stated that on 24-7-1989 Inspector Zamin Abbas, handed over sealed parcel which he delivered in the Office of the Chemical Examiner intact. P.W.3 Muhammad Saddique registered formal F.I.R. On receiving complaint from Inspector, Zamin Abbas, P.W.4 Zamin Abbas, Inspector is complainant and Investigating Officer. He has stated that on 21-7-1989 he alongwith other police officials was on patrol duty. He received secret information near Darbar Haider Sain that accused was selling heroin. A raiding party was constituted and appellant was apprehended and from his personal search 30 grams of heroin was recovered. Sample was taken.
He drafted complaint and sent to police station for registration of case. He recorded statements of witnesses and prepared site plan. He handed over sample to Moharrir for delivery in the office of the Chemical Examiner and on receipt of report of Chemical Examiner 'submitted challan in the Court. P.W.2 Munir Ahmad has supported the case and stated that in his presence 30 grams of heroin was secured and he attested the memo.
6. Appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P.C. Has denied the allegation and stated that case against him is false. In his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He has stated that he was present at his shop where policemen came and took him to police station. The case is false.
Appellant has also examined two defence witnesses, namely, Meraj Din and Muhammad Shafiq.
' Both defence witnesses have stated that accused is a man of good character and nothing was recovered from him in their presence.
7. I have heard Mr. N.A. Butt counsel for the appellant. It is urged that case has been filed due to enmity. Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate-General alongwith Mr. Abu-ul-Fateh, counsel for the State has supported the conviction and stated that case has been proved.
8. I have gone through the evidence. The witnesses have supported. The appellant has not proved enmity with prosecution witnesses. Mr. Butt, learned counsel has frankly stated that witnesses have not been properly cross-examined but requests for reduction of sentence. Appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has stated that the case is false. The defence witnesses have stated that appellant was taken away from shop. Appellant or witnesses have not moved any application against police. The witnesses in their evidence on oath have stated that heroin was secured from the possession of appellant. The names of defence witnesses have not been disclosed in statement of accused nor put to witnesses. I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
9. There is nothing on record that appellant is previous convict or habitual offender. Therefore, I reduce the sentence from three years to two years' R.I. But maintain the sentences of stripes and fine. He is given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
10. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. /Sentence reduced.