1. ' Shahab Din son of Qutab Din and Ghulam Nabi son of Qamar Din were sent up for trial by Police Station Manawan, District Lahore to face trial for an offence under section 156(1)(8)/89 of the Customs Act, 1969. Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, vide his judgment, dated 2-5-1991 convicted and sentenced each of the accused to five years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default further imprisonment for six months. They were also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Convicts have appealed. This judgment shah dispose of the same.
2. Prosecution story in brief was that Muhammad Yousaf Inspector C.IA., Lahore, received information that Abdul Majeed, Shahab Din and Ghulam Nabi, who indulged in the narcotics business, would make an attempt on the same day for purposes of smuggling into India. A raiding party was constituted. On 9th September, 1985 at 11-00 a.m. the above-said accused were found going on foot carrying bags in their hands. They were apprehended and it transpired that each one of them was carrying one maund of charas. They were taken into custody and Charas was taken into possession. Ghulam Nabi during interrogation disclosed that he had kept eight bags containing nine maunds of charas in his house, which was also secured. After usual investigation challan was submitted in Court.
2. ' Prosecution in support of its case produced five witnesses in all. Abdur Rehman Si. P.W.1 recorded formal F.I.R. Exh. PA/1 on the basis of complaint Exh.PA received by him. The ocular account was furnished by Muhammad Yousaf; Zahoor Ahmad and Zulfiqar Haider P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 respectively.
3. All of them corroborated the prosecution version by stating that the appellants were apprehended at the spot and one maund of charas from the possession of each of the accused was recovered.
4. They were cross-examined at length. Zahoor Ahmad P.W.4, a witness from public, was cross- examined. Later, on the application of the accused persons for further cross-examination he was summoned but he did not appear. In these circumstances, the contention that no reliance could be placed on his statement appears to be correct.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset submitted that he did not challenge the conviction and sentence of the accused persons but only prayed for reduction in sentence.
6. According to him, the appellants were only carriers and sentence awarded to them was too harsh.
7. Submitted that they had no interest in the charas whatsoever. Learned counsel appearing for the State, Sh. Maqbool Ahmad Standing Counsel, did not seriously oppose the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence. Abdul Majeed was also apprehended at the spot, who died before the commencement of proceedings. Even if the statement of P.W.4 Zahoor Ahmad, who could not be cross-examined, is excluded from consideration, yet case against the appellants stands amply proved from the statement of Muhammad Yousaf and Zulfiqar Haider P.Ws. 2 and 5, respectively. They were not suggested in cross-examination any enmity or illwill for the false involvement of the appellants. In these circumstances, I hold that case against the appellants stands fully proved.
9. ' As far as the question of sentence is concerned, it requires consideration. Appellants were apprehended on 9th September, 1985 and since then they are facing the hardships of trial. There is nothing on the file to indicate that the appellants are habitual offenders or were ever involved, previously in the case of smuggling. Keeping this fact in view while dismissing the appeal, the sentence of appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them, which comes to more than two years. The sentence of fine or in default thereof, is, however, maintained. Appeal is dismissed.
10. Sentence reduced.