' TANZIL-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.--- This Jail Criminal Appeal arises out of judgment, dated 12-2-1991, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh Camp at Gojra, whereby he convicted the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Order") and sentenced him to life imprisonment with twenty stripes and a fine of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac). In default of payment of fine the appellant to further undergo R.I. For five yeaRs,
2. The facts arising out of the above appeal, briefly stated, are that a police party headed by Malik Muhammad Khan, Inspector, P.W.1 on receipt of information arranged for a raid at the house of Sadiq Changar while the said Sadiq Changar, his mother Mst. Sardaran and the appellant were found on the street outside their house selling heroin. Sadiq and his mother on seeing the police party slipped away leaving there a bag containing 250 grams of heroin. The appellant also tried to escape but was apprehended by the said police raiding party and on his search a polethine bag containing 1,000 grams was recovered from the right pocket of his Salooka (vest). The said bag of heroin Exh.P.I. Recovered from the possession of the appellant was taken into possession and recovery memo. Exh.P.A. Was prepared which was attested by Ghazunfar Abbas, S.I. And Muhammad Iqbal, A.S.I. One gram of heroin was taken out of it and a sample sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner through Syed Haider Abbas, Constable, for its owned transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 31-1-1989. On receipt of Chemical Examiner's report Exh.P.D. In positive a challan against the appellant was submitted in the Sessions Court.
3. The prosecution in all examined five witnesses who have fully supported the prosecution case.
The statements of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. As well as 340(2), Cr.P.C. Were also recorded. No defence witness was, however, examined by the appellant.
4. We have heard Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, learned counsel for the appellant, appointed by the Court as it is an appeal from Jail and Mr. Muhammad Aslam Uns, learned counsel for the State and also perused the record.
5. Mr. Ghazi, submits that the police left off the other accused namely, Siddique and his wife Mst.
Sardaran and apprehended the appellant falsely. The submission is belied by the F.I.R. Itself which for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under:- {{URDU TEXT}}
6. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery of heroin is established from the possession of the appellant. The reliance is placed by him on the statement of the appellant that no heroin was recovered from him. The plea is unfounded. It seems pertinent to reproduce the entire statement made on oath by the appellant:-- "I was personal servant of Mst. Sardaran and Muhammad Sadiq accused in other cases of heroin.
Police conducted a raid and recovered heroin P.1 and some other from the possession of the said persons and wrongly planted upon me. I ran away at the sight of police party to save myself but I was apprehended by the police. ' xxx by A.DA.
' I remained the servant of Mst. Sardaran and Muhammad Sadiq for about one year. It is correct that Sardaran accused used to bring heroin from outside and to hand over the same to Muhammad Sadiq for selling it out. I did not produce any witness in my support, during investigation, before the police. It is incorrect to suggest that heroin P.1 was recovered from me." proved that the appellant had been indulging in narcotics trade as servant of Sadiq and Mst.
Sardaran against whom the separate cases under F.I.R. Nos.14 and 15 were registered on the same day. It is also proved that the appellant was present on the day, time and place of occurrence. It is admitted by the appellant himself that he ran away on seeing the police party to save himself but he was apprehended by the police and thus his attempt to slip away from the scene of occurrence was foiled.
8. As regards the recovery it stands proved by the prosecution witnesses whose evidence could not be shaken in cross-examination. We would, therefore, uphold the conviction of the appellant.
9. Learned counel lastly prayed for reduction of sentence. He referred to a case wherein this Court had upheld the conviction under Article 4 of the said Order and sentenced to five years' R.I. For recovery of 500 grams of heroin. Learned counsel for the State submits that the life imprisonment seems to be harsh in the case and the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to ten years' R.I. In our opinion the mere quantity of contraband article involved in the case should not be the yardstick for the quantum of punishment. All attending circumstances of the case have to be taken into consideration. In the instant case the appellant is shown to be a servant of some drug-traffickers who were challaned separately. We would, therefore, reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years' R.I. The other sentences will remain intact.
10. Learned counsel further requests for the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Since we have reduced the sentence we do not think it proper to grant benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
11. Before parting with the case we would like to bring this fact on record that Abdul Hafeez, A.S.I., P.S. Gojra, who is present in Court has submitted in writing that in F.I.R. Nos.14 and 15, dated 17-1-1989 P.S. City Gojra under Article 3/4 of the said Order, Muhammad Sadiq son of Muhammad Shafi and Mst.
Sardaran have also been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by separate judgment, dated 12-2-1991.
Sentence reduced.