Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 52/1, of 1986, decided on 18th November, 1986.

‑‑‑Arts. 4 & 22‑‑Testimony of police officials‑‑Contraband recovered from personal search of accused‑‑Report of Chemical Examiner, positive‑‑Recovery witnesses, police officials‑‑Nothing on record showing any motive to falsely implicate accused‑‑No enmity suggested to witness‑‑Nothing found to discredit police official‑‑Provisions of search, held, were not applicable to personal search and testimony of Investigating Officer could be relied upon like that of any other person and no exception could be taken to evidence on record.

1985 P Cr. L J 778 and P L D 1984 F S C 278 ref.

Mian Jameel Ahmad on behalf of Muhammad Nasrullah Warraich for Appellant.

Muhammad Iqbal Choudhry Vehniwal for the State.

Date of hearing: 18th November, 1986.

.‑‑The Additional Sessions Judge Gujrat Camp at Phalia has convicted Muhammad Gulzar son of Muhammad Yousaf under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for being in possession of 33 grams Heroin and has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years. He has appealed against that order.

2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. drafted by Bashir Ahmed Bhatti S.I. Police is that, on 14‑2‑1985 while he was patrolling the area of Mandi Bahauddin at about 3‑30 p. m. received an information that Muhammad Gulzar accused was selling Heroin at his house. He raided the place of occurrence in street No. 2 G urah Mohallah and found Muhammad Gulzar accused was holding are envelope in his right hand. Seeing the police party, he tried to slip away but was arrested, and 33 grams of Heroin contained in six packets was recovered. The recovery memo. was prepared and was witnessed by Muhammad Inayat Constable No 781 and one Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.3). The sample out of the narcotic recovered was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Lahore who made a positive report. The complaint drafted in this behalf by B Bashir Ahmad Bhatti was sent to the Thana where it was formally recorded by Sabir Hussain M.H.C. Police Station, Mandi Bahauddin. The two parcels received from P.W. 4 (Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, S.I.) where kept in Malkhana and later through Muhammad Inayat F.C. (P. W. 2) sent to the Chemical Examiner. After completing the formalities the accused was sent to face the trial. The trial Court framed the charge which was denied by the accused/ appellant.

3. In support of the prosecution case four witnesses have been examined. They are, P.W. 1, (Sabir Hussain), P.W. 2 (Muhammad Inayat), P.W. 3 (Muhammad Ashraf) and P.W. 4 (Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, S.I. Police). Except Muhammad Ashraf (P.W. 3) the recovery has been established through Muhammad Inayat (P.W. 2) and Bashir Ahmed Bhatti (P.W. 4) P. W. 3 (Muhammad Ashraf) resiled from his statement and expressed his ignorance about the case. The report of the Chemical Examiner has been tendered in evidence as Exh. D.D. The accused in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in reply to the Question No. 4 why this case against him and why the P.Ws. deposed against him, he stated that 'due to enmity'. No particulars of the enmity against any of the prosecution witnesses examined at the trial were furnished. Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Yamin have been examined in defence. Abdul Rashid (D.W. 1) has stated that previously Muhammad Gulzar accused has been working with Akram and presently he is working with him (D.W. 1). There was a money dispute between said Akram and Gulzar accused. Strangely enough while Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, S.I. Police and Muhammad Inayat F.C. Police were being examined no suggestion was put to them that Akram had arranged the raid or in any way persuaded these witnesses to implicate the accused. Muhammad Yamin (D.W.2) does not remember exact date when accused was arrested by police. This witness was candid enough to say that he did not appear before the police to depose about the innocence of the accused.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/ appellant has challenged the order of conviction on the solitary ground that the statements of police officials are not worthy of any credit and on the basis of their statements, the conviction is not maintainable. The learned counsel has placed reliance for the contention on the cases reported 1985 P Cr. L J 778 and P L D 1984 F S C 278.

5. We have perused the cases cited and found that they are in‑ept and are distinguishable. The prosecution case against the appellant is that he wanted to run away from the place but was caught and on his personal search the narcotic was recovered. In these circumstances, there is no manner of doubt that the recovery was in fact made from the accused/ appellant. The latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which has been followed by this Court is that the testimony of the Investigating Officer can be relied upon like that of any other person. There is nothing on record to show that the had any motive to falsely implicate the accused/ appellant. The provisions of Search are not applicable to personal search as already stated above. No enmity whatsoever has been suggested to the recovery witness Muhammad Inayat and nothing has been brought which may discredit Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, S.I. Police. The mere fact that the prosecution witnesses happened to be police officials is not enough to discredit them. The respectability of witness does not connote any particular status. Any person can claim responsibility provided, he is not disreputable in any way. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the conviction is based on the evidence to which no exception can be taken. This appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed. The appellant Muhammad Gulzar son of Muhammad Yousaf is on bail. He has not attended this Court today. He shall be arrested to serve out the remaining sentence.

S.A. 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.