Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.325/C of 1982, decided on 23rd June, 1985.

‑‑‑S 156(1)(8)‑‑Large quantity of heroin recovered from attache case of accused by Customs Officers‑‑Prosecution case resting mainly upon testimony of a Customs Officer, a Superintendent of Customs, Deputy Superintendent of Customs and a waiter at a hotel at Railway platform‑ All such witnesses supporting prosecution case‑‑None of said witnesses having any enmity with accused and there being no reason at all for them to plant heroin in such a large quantity on accused‑‑Accused proved to be caught in act of smuggling heroin out of Pakistan‑ Conviction maintained in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 156(1)(8)‑‑Heroin recovered from accused by Customs officials‑ According to F.I.R. a sample of heroin was prepared and sealed by Customs Officer (prosecution witness)‑‑Report of chemical examiner found on record‑‑Said report showing that sealed parcel was received in office of chemical examiner through Customs Officer (prosecution witness)‑‑Said Customs Officer not cross‑examined by defence regarding manner of keeping parcel with him before delivering same in office of chemical examiner‑‑Apparently defence was satisfied at trial regarding safe custody of parcel before its delivery at said office‑‑Contention that there was no evidence regarding taking of any sample of heroin or that sample was delivered intact to chemical examiner, found to be without merit‑‑Conviction maintained. in circumstances.

Wendy Elaine v. State 1984 P Cr. L J 248

.

‑‑‑S. 156(1)(8)‑‑Sentence‑‑Accused caught in act of smuggling 1,750 grams of heroin out of Pakistan‑‑Trial Court awarding sentence of 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 to accused‑‑Held, accused had already been leniently treated in matter of sentence by trial Court‑ Sentence awarded by trial Court therefore maintained in circumstances.

Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Appellant.

Maqbool Ahmad II for the State.

Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1985.

The appellant Bore Muhammad was convicted by the learned Special Judge (Customs), Lahore, of an offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 in default of payment of the fine he was directed to receive simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. He has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence.

2. According to the prosecution on 8‑2‑1982 at about 1‑00 p.m., the appellant entered the customs zone at the Lahore Railway Station, Lahore, prior to boarding a train for India. On inquiry by Shahid Mehmood, Customs Inspector, if he was carrying any objectionable article he replied in the negative. He was carrying an attache case. It was opened by Shahid Mehmood. It has, a false bottom. From underneath the bottom a plastic bag containing 1,750 grams of heroin of the value of Rs.2,00,000 (approximate) was recovered. On a report prepared by Shahid Mehmood a case under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act was registered against him.

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. He denied that any heroin was recovered from his possession. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

4. The case of the prosecution against the appellant rests mainly upon the testimony of Shahid Mehmood, P.W.4, Abdul Rashid P.W.3, Mubashar Ali, P.W.2 and T.H. Qazilbash, P.W.1. They all stated that A when the appellant came to the customs counter he was carrying an attache case. On an inquiry by Shahid Mehmood if he was carrying anything objectionable he replied in' the negative. Later, on opening the attache case a large quantity of heroin was recovered. It may be mentioned that T.H. Qazilbash is a Superintendent of Customs, Mubashar Ali, P.W.2 is a Deputy Superintendent of Customs while Abdul Rashid P.W.3 was a waiter/bearer at a hotel at the platform. None of these witnesses had any enmity with the appellant and there was no reason) at all for them to plant heroin in such a large quantity on him.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was) no evidence that any sample was taken of the alleged heroin or that the sample was delivered intact to the Chemical Examiner; consequently, the conviction of the appellant could not be sustained. In support of his contention he relied upon Wendy Elaine v. State 1984 P Cr. L J 248. I find little merit in this contention and in my opinion the authority cited by the learned counsel is easily distinguishable. It is stated in the F.I.R. Exh.P.C. that a sample‑of the heroin was prepared and sealed by Shahid Mehmood, P.W.4. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Exh.P.D. on the record. It is mentioned therein that the sealed parcel was received in his office. When Shahid Mehmood appeared in the witness‑box he was not examined by the defence with regard to the manner in which he had kept the parcel with him before he delivered it in the office of the Chemical Examiner. Apparently the defence was satisfied at the trial with regard to the safe custody of the parcel before its delivery at the said office. In the case cited by the learned counsel the learned Judge had noted that there was no indication that the parcels delivered at the office of the Chemical Examiner were sealed; on the other hand, there was evidence that no sealed parcels at all were prepared. I should therefore think that there is no similarity between the precedent case cited by the learned counsel and the one before me.

6. On the evidence on record I am satisfied that the appellant was caught in the act of smuggling heroin out of Pakistan into India. He was thus rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge of the offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act. He has already been leniently treated in the matter of sentence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall now surrender himself to undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence.

H.A.K.

Appeal dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.