' This appeal filed by Khalid Javed son of Rehmat Ali, resident of Mohallah Kalupura Gujrat City is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, dated 21-6-1992 thereby he has been convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Ladd) Order, 1979 (hereinafter called the said Order) and sentenced ten years' R.I. Twenty stripes and a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default further six months' R.I. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has also been extended to him.
2. Briefly stated it is the case of prosecution according to complaint Exh.P.A. Recorded by Muhammad Ashraf, Inspector/S.H.O. On 12-2-1992 that on that day at about 3-15 p.m. He along with Muhammad Rauf, Constable, Shahzad Shafique, A.S.-I. And other police officials was present in Fawara Chowk, Gujrat. He received spy information that the appellant who used to deal in narcotics was intending to go to Sarafa Bazar for this purpose. The appellant who was coming on foot on link road and reached near the shop of Nadeem. He along with Inayat Ullah entered the hotel of Shaukat Ali and when the appellant passed in front of the hotel, he had a polythene envelope in his hand. He was apprehended in the presence of Inayat Ullah and Shaukat Ali and the polythene envelope was searched, it was found that it contained 500 grams of heroin kept in another shopper lying beneath the "Russ" pieces. Ten grams were separated from the same and sealed into a parcel. The remaining heroin was also sealed into a separate sealed parcel and taken into possession vide memo; Rupees 2,300 were also recovered from the possession of the appellant and were taken into possession. After completion of necessary investigation formalities, he was challaned to face the trial.
3. At the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. P.W.1 is Nisar Ahmed, H.C. He recorded formal F.I.R. And kept the case property and cash amount for safe custody in the Malkhana. On 18- 2-1992 he handed over the sample sealed parcel to Muhammad Aslam, F.C. P.W.5 who transmitted the same to the Office of the Chemical Examiner on the same date. P.W.2 is Muhammad Rauf, F.C.
He was a member of the party and a witness to the recovery memo. Exh.P.B. P.W.3 is Shaukat Ali. He is the witness to the recovery memo. Exh.P.B. P.W.4 is Shahzad Shafique, A.S.-I. He was also a member of the party who apprehended the appellant and on his personal search _made recovery as mentioned above. He is the witness to the recovery memo. Exh.P.B. P.W.6 is Muhammad Ashraf, Inspector. He is the complainant who also investigated the case and challaned the appellant- accused. The report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.C. Is positive.
4. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegation and pleaded innocent. Replying the question, "why this case against you", he made a statement in the following words:-- "I run a general store at Shadiwal Road. One Shaba also runs a shop adjacent to my shop who was got arrested 'on my potation and 225 grams heroin was recovered from his possession. Police arrested him but later on after getting illegal gratification he was released and instead I was falsely involved in this case due to political pressure and enmity with the P.Ws."
' He also made a statement on oath wherein he stated as under:-- "On 9-2-1992 after closing my shop I was going towards Mohallah Shah Hussain to see my friend. At about 8-30 p.m. On the said date, when I reached near Fawara Chowk, there was Nakabandi by the police party. I was on a motorcycle which I had purchased in installments. The police inquired about documents of motorcycle. I only showed my identity card to the police. My friend Shahzad was sitting with me on the said motorcycle. The police took into possession the motorcycle and apprehended my friend Shahzad. I went to police post bus-stop where a police constable known to me was posted. The name of the police constable is Mehdi. I brought Mehdi, F.C. From there with me at Fawara Chowk. I along with Mehdi went to Police Station "A" Division. One Malak Councilor f Gujrat city was sitting at the police station. Malak Councilor was known to me. Malak Councilor inquired about my arrival at the police station and I told him that my motorcycle has been taken into possession by the police. A.S.-I. Shahzad asked me to bring the documents of the motorcycle and then the motorcycle shall be released. I had purchased the motorcycle from one Bhola resident of Mohalla Bakhshupura. I came to him and took him along with me to the police station because the documents were with him and I had purchased the motorcycle in installments. At about 10 p.m. I and Bhola arrived at the police station. The documents were shown to Shahzad, A.S.- I. Who kept the documents and released the motorcycle. Shahzad, A.S.-I. Said that the documents may be received on the next day at about 12 noon. On the next day I went to the police station to collect the documents. I was asked to sit in a room where I kept on sitting there for 20 minutes but no one came to me. Then I was handcuffed by two or three constables and I was informed that I have been challaned in a case of motorcycle. When I had come at the police station to collect the documents my friend Shaba was with me at that time. Shaba was got sit in the other room. At about 12 night Shaba was given physical beating by police and I had heard his cries. In the morning Shahzad, A.S.-I. Came to me and I inquired that as to why Shaba was given physical beating.
Shahzad, A.S.-I. Told me that Shaba has confessed about sale and possession of heroin. Shaba also runs a shop at Shadiwal Road. His shop is connected with my shop and in fact both are one shop but separated by a wall made of hard wood. I run crockery shop while Shaba runs a shop of video cassettes. Shaba used to deal with illegal business of narcotics, earlier. He was challenged in 10/12 cases of this nature. In the meantime 15/20 persons, supporters of Shaba came at the police station and they got released Shaba from the police, getting illegal gratification. Then I was involved in the instant case by the police. In fact the heroin 225 grams in weight was actually recovered from the possession of Shaba and by mixing some other material (Lilli. Baal Safa Powder) the heroin 500 grams in weight, as shown in this case was planted on me. I was deprived from cash amount Rs,2,700 by police and one identity card of mine."
' He also examined one Shaukat Ali as D.W.I who had appeared as P.W.3 also. He made the statement in the following words:-- "On 12-2-1992 at about 3-15 to 4 p.m. The police did not come into my hotel known as Shaukat Hotel, situated near Police Station 'A' Division, Gujrat City. I do not know if heroin was recovered front Khalid Javed accused present in Court. I do not know if Khalid Javed accused came at my hotel on the above hotel. I know Inayat P.W. Even Inayat P.W. Was not present at my hotel on the above date and time. I was called in the evening time on 12-2-1992 and was forced to sign a paper. My earlier statement in this case was got recorded under the pressure of police, as I was threatened for involvement in false case so under fear I earlier made statement in this Court. I and Inayat P.W. Had appeared before learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat and submitted our affidavits there. After filing of the affidavits we were threatened by the police."
' He also examined Shahid Hameed and Bashir Ahmed as D.W.2 and D.W.3.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.
6. It transpires from the record that the case of prosecution against the appellant is established by the testimonies of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6. Their statements are consistent in material particulars and inspire confidence. There is nothing on the record to establish that any of the P.Ws. Had any mala fides against the appellant. The appellant has taken the plea that he was falsely involved in this case due to political pressure and enmity with the P.Ws. But he has not been able to prove it by any cogent piece of evidence. Strangely even in his statement on oath he has not been able to bring forth on record any material that could show why he was pressurized and why the P.Ws. Were on inimical terms towards him. Although he has examined Shahid Hameed and Bashir Ahmed as D.Ws. Who but even their statements are not of any help in this connection. They have given general type of statement with no particular reference to the present case. Both the D.Ws. Who have referred to have seen him on 10-2-1992 at Police Station "A" Division Gujrat, and do not know if the present case is false or not. The appellant himself has given details of occurrence in his statement dated 17-6-1992 wherein he has mentioned the names of Shahzad, Police Constable Mehdi, Malak, Councillor, Bhola and his friend Shaba but has produced none of them in his defence.
In the circumstances, their evidence could have been more relevant than those of D.W.2 and D.W.3 to corroborate his defence plea. h is pertinent to mention that Shaukat Ali appeared as D.W.1 but statement of this D.W. Is without any credibility. Earlier, he made statement on oath on 13-5-1992 as P.W.3 and fully supported the case of prosecution. It is not known why after a month he turned a somersault and appeared as D.W.1.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that there were contradictions in the statements of P.Ws. But on scrutiny the same were found very minor in nature and not at all material enough to shatter the case of prosecution.
8. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the sentence awarded was very harsh and prayed for reduction, in view of a chain of judgments on similar quantity of contraband. The learned counsel for the State also conceded in thii respect.
9. Consequently, for the reasons stated above, I maintain the conviction of the appellant but keeping in view the quantity of recovered contraband as being '500 grams, I reduce his sentence of imprisonment from ten years to five years' R.I. Whipping from twenty stripes to ten strips and amount of fine from Rs,50,000 to Rs,10,000 or in default six months' R.I. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Extended by the trial Court shall remain intact.
10. With this modification in the sentences, the appeal is dismissed.