Forty-fourth year of publication
REGD. No. CPL-03
PAR'
VOL. XLIV
Pakistan
Criminal ,L aw Journa
.. [P Cr.L J]
JOURNAL · OF CRIMINAL RULINGS
June, .2011 .
Editors:
MR. MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHOKHAR, B.A., LL.B.
MR. MUHAMMAD WAHAJ AZHAR, LL.B. (HONS.) (LOND.)
LL.M. (LOND.); BAR-AT-LAW
MR. KASHIF MIRZUBAIR, LL.B. (HONS.) (WARWICK)
[pp. 961- 1152] .
Mode or Citation: 1011 PCr.LJ 973 etc.
PAKISTAN CRIMINAL LAW "JOURNAL
35-NABHA ROAD, LAHORE .(pAKISTAN)
(Phones: ·"37356228137356287)
Email: [email protected]= pldpublish,[email protected]
Fax No. (042) 37238113
Printed and Published by P L D Publishers at the Pakistan
.
Educational Press, Lahore.
For regular subscribers: Rs.SSt(Postage/carriage extra)
1102
PAKISTAN CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. XLIV
2011 P Cr. L J 1102
[Federal Shariat Court]
Before Shahz:ado Shaikh. J
ALI KHAN ---Appellant
versus
THE ST ATE---Respondem
Criminal Appeal No. 96/1 of20tO, decided on'28th March. ~Oll.
(a) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)------Arts. 314---Manufacturing, owning or possessing intoxicant--Appreciation of evidence---Statement of Investigating Officer was
recorded after 14 years of occurrence, but defellce could not create any
dent- in spile of lengthy cross-examination--Co-accused who was
convicted and sentenced to 10 years' R.I. and he completed his
sentence, but accused remained absconder for about 14 years and was
declared proclaimed offender---Case of accused was of same nature
and same set of evidence Ilad been produced by the prosecution against
accused---Witnesses were/ound credible---All the recovery witnesses
had corroborated each other and supported reco'llery of 11-112 Kgs. of
heroin from accused which' on chemical analysis was confinned to be
heroin---Such a huge quantity of heroin could not be jalsely plallted on
accllsed---Accused had failed Lo 'establisll his plea of false implication
and io rebut tile prosecution version---No enmity against Police witness
had b.!en pro 'lied on record---Delay for sending. tile sample to Chemical
Examiner for examination, would be immaterial as, two samples were
sent in time to the Chemical Examiner which were tested positive--Provision of S.103, Cr.P.C., was not strictly attracted in the case and
Police Officers were competent witnesses of recovery who clearly
deposed and cQrroborated regarding recovery ,of heroin from the
possession of accused-Plea of violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., was not
sustainable, in circumstances---Statements of Police Officials, in spite
of cross-examination, were consistent---Mere fact that confeSSional
statement of co-accused, was made ' bj a person who was tried in same
crime, whell accused was absconding for long period of about 14 years,
would not be sufficient to reject the same on that ground---No
contradictions were found in the statements of prosecution witnesses--Samples were taken from all the bags and there was no confession or
any contrary contention to the nature and quantity of the commodity--Procurement of private individual witness, would not be safely
expected, in circumstances of the case-~-Judgment delivered by Ihe
Trial Court did not suffer from any infirmity or error--lnterJeren.ce
[,Cr,LI
2011J
Ali Khan v. State
(Shahzado Shailc4. 1)
1103
was declined and judgment of Trial Court was mai.n tained, ill
cin;umsrances. {pp. 1108, 1110, 1111, 111Z/ A, 8, D & B .
Muhammad Hashim v. The State PLD 2004 SC 856; Nawab Ali
v. The State NLR 1995 SD 374; Ahmad Sher and another v. The State
PLD 1995 FSC 20; Tank Steel and Re-Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v.
Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 69 and Ahmad Sher and another v.
The State PLD 1995 FSC 20 ref.
(b) Words and phrases------ "Public place ", defined a"d explained. [po 1110J C
Muhammad Ishtiaq Ibrahim for Appellant.
Muhammad Sharif Janjua for the State.
Date of hearing : 28th March, 2011.
. JUDGMENT .
SHAHZADO SHAIKH, J.---Appcllant Ali Khan has filed this
criminal appeal against the judgment dated 25-10-2010 delivered by
learned Additional Sessions Judge/lzafi Zila Qazi, BUlleer 'at Daggar
whereby appellant has beell convicted under Ar.ticle 3 of the Prohibition
(Enfprcement of Hadd) Order. 1979 and sentenced to ten years! Rigorous
Imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,OOO (Rupees fifty thousand only) in
default whereof to further undergo one year Simple Imprisonment. The
benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been
extended to the .appellant.
2 . Th~ brief facts of the case have arisen out of F.I.R.No .387
dated 6-7-199610dged by the complainant InspectorIS.H .O. Sirblund
Khan are that on 6-7-1996 at 8-00 a.m. thecomplaill<lllt after receiving
spy information made nakabandi on the main road leading towards Gut
bandi and stopped Datsun/Pickup No . DR-75l. On search, he recovered
5-112 kilograms heroin contained in different bags from the possession of
accused Ali Khan, while six kilograms heroin waS recovered from the
possession of co-accused namely Zafar in the company of two ladies
Mst. Sham-o-Sahar and Mst. Ishrat ·as such total 11-112 kilograms of
heroin were recovered from the possession of both the above mentioned
accused contained in different bags. Hence tllis case.
3. Invesdgation ensued as a consequence of registration of Crime
Report No. 387 dated 6-7-1996. Inspector/S.H.O. Sirbland Khan. after
arrest, me accused, prepared murasala and dispatched to Police Station
whereupon' F.I.R. was lodged as Sxh.PA:-He prepared two parcels of
heroin Exh .P-I and Exh.P-2 attested-..hy the P.W.6 Feroz Shah and
PC,./J
1104
PAKISTAN CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. XLIV
Bakhti, driver of vehicle (not produced). He took two grams heroin each
.from each bag of heroin and sent for analysis to Forensic Science
Laboratory, Peshawar. He recorded statements of accused Zafar, Mst.
Sham-o-Sahar and M.st. Ishrat, co-accused under section 161 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. He produced the said accused before Court of
Judicial Magistrate for recording. their confessional statements under
section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Zatar
got . his statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of
C·riminal Procedure wherein he confessed his guilt. However, ladies
accused Mst. Sham-o-Sahar and Mst. Ishrat, co-accused did not confess
their guilt. He arrested Muhammad Jaroeel and Gul Fareen, co-accused
on 13-7-1996. On the same day he 'recorded the statement of Ali
Khan accused under section 161 of the- Code of Criminal
Procedure. On 17-7-i996, he arrested accused Dand Yaseen and
Nasib . Dad and after interrogation,' they were produced before the
Court of Magistrate where they did not get their confessional
statements recorded and subsequently they were sent to Judicial·Lockup.
Accused Nazir, Shair Ali, Bazeem. Khan, Haji Naeem Dad were declared
absconders. He assigned non-bailable warrants of arrest of accused
Nazir andSher · Ali to DfC who could not arrest them. The
remaining recovered . heroin of this case was destroyed 011 the
order of the Courfon 24-2-2009 by keeping its report as Exh.P.W.4/6 .
Statement of driver namely Bakhti was recorded under section 164 ot
the . Code of Criminal Procedure Exh.P.W.417. After co.nipleting
investigation police submitted report under section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to the Court.
'
4. The case was tried against the accused Zafar, Gul FareeD,
Muhammad Iameel, Naseeb Dad,Mst. Dand Yaseen arid Mst. Ishrat, coaccused separately tried in the court .of Sessions Judge Zita Qazi,
Buneer which delivered judgment, dated 23-2-2000 and convicted
accuscr<i Zafar under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of
Hadd) · Order, 1979 and sentenced him to ten years'· Rigorous
Imprisonment, 20 stripes with fine of JU.IO,OOO(Rupees ten thousand
only) in default whereof to further undergo six months' Simple
Imprisonment while the remaining accused were acqui~ted from the case.
However, accused Ali Khan after getting bail absconded. Accused Nazir
and Sher Ali who .were discharged from ·. this case by IlIaqa Qui
Buneer/EAC were again summoned through challan by the learned
Sessions Judge, Buneer.
5. On 28-4-2010 the learned triaiCourt framed charge against
accused Ali Klan, Nazir Khan and Sher Ali Khan under Articles 3/4 of
the Prohibition ' (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 to which they
pleaded not gUilty and claimed trial.
2011]
Ali Khan v. State
1105
(Shahzaclo Shaikh, 1)
6. The orosecution in order to grove its ~a~; ;~ilmille<1
witnesses. The gist of prosecution evidence is as follows:-(i)
nine
Ghani Shah, ASI appeared as P.W.I. He Oft' 14-7-1996, while
SHO was on special duty, produced accused Jameel and G~I
Fareen through application Exlt .P.W . lIl and accused AliKhan
through application Exh.P. W .112 before the Court of Magistrate
for recording their statements under sections 164/364 of the
. Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Ali Khan did not make
confessional statement and he was sent to judicial lock up while
one day physical remand of accused Muhammad lameeland Gul
Fareen was given to him. On 15-7-1996 he again through
llpplication EltIl.P .W.1I3 obtained one day physical remand of
accused on direction of Sirbland Khan, SHOo
(ii) HC Sartaj was P.W.2. He WaS assigned non-bailable warrants
against accused Na~ir and Sher Ali under section 204 of the
Code of Criminal Producer Exh.P.W.21l and Exh.P.W.2/2
which he returned unexecuted before the Court along with
reports Exh .P.W.2/3 and Exh.P.W.2/4. Thereafter, he was
assigned proclamation warrants against "accused under section 87
of the Code of Criminal· Procedure Exh.P .W.2/S and
Exh.P.W.2/6 and ·he made compliance of the same with his
reports Exh.P .W.217 and Exh .P.W.2/g .
(iii) Jehangir Khan was P.W.3. On 10-7-1996 when he was
Magistrate-I1IIlaq Qa~i, ·Buneer recorded statement of accused
(Zafar son of Muhammad Ra~am) under sections 164/364 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure after fulfilling all the legal
formalities required under the law.
(iv) Inspector/SHO Sarblund · appeared as P.W.4 .. He was
Investigating Officer and .his role has already been mentioned in
para No .3 of this judgment.
(v)
P.W.S, Sub-Inspector Shah Jabbar Khan had endorsed the order
of interim bail granted to accused Sher Ali. Thereafter name of
this accused was mentioned in · subsequent chalIan as
Exh.P.W.5/1.
(vi) A .S.-I. Feroz Shah, P.W.6 corroborated statement of the
complainant.
(vii) Retired Sub-Inspector Gul Bakhshad was P.W.7. He obtained
non-baiJable warrants against accused Ali Khall Exh.P. W. 7/1
which he returned unexecuted with his report Exit ..!'. W. 7/2 and
Exh.P.W.7!3.
I'Cr.1J
PAKISTAN CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
1106
[Vol. XLIV
(viii)P.W.B, Sub-Inspector,' Sher Muhammad Khan had recorded
formal F.I.R. No. 387 Exh.P.A.
(ix) P.W.9, A.S.-I. Siraat Khan identified the 'signatures of SHO
Abdul Rehman who had submitted ,subsequent chalhin after
arrest of accused Ali Khan on 1-3-2010.
7. After closing prosecution evidence, statements of accused were
recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
accused neither opted to make their statements recorded under s~cti(Jn
340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor produced allY witness in
their defence.
8. After hearing both the parties the learnea trial Court convicted
and sentenced.. the appellant as mentioned in opening para of this
judgment.
9.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that:--
1.
There are many material contradictions ill the statements of
prosecution witnesses.
II.
Th~
case property was not produced by the prosecution before
the trial Court during the trial of the present appellant.
III. There are two FSL reports. As per prosecution evidence, two
grams each t'rom all the twelve pac~ets were separated for the
purpose.of Chemical analysis. On 6-7-1996, two samples of two
grams each were sent to the FSL, for chemical analysis as such
prosecution proved only two kilograms of heroin which were
allegedly recovered t'rom the possession of both the accused
whiCh make the alleged recovery as well as report of FSL
doubtful. On 15-10-1996, twelve samples from recovered beroin
were, again sent to FSL after the unexplained delay of 3 months
and 10 days, which also create doubts in the prosecution case. [n
this respect learned counsel for the appellant relied UPOIl the
followingjudgment:Muhammad Hashim v. The State PLD 2004 SC 856
"that vide recovery memoExh.P/l-A,4 grams of charas was
taken out from total 288 rods. Nothing is available on record to
show. whether sample for examination by Chemical Examiner
was taken out from each rod to ascertain that 288 rods were of
charas or some other commodity, having resemblance with the
colour of charas like Oil Cake (Khal) etc. it is to be noted that
under Act, 1997; stringent sentences have been provided if
offences charged against the accused within any component of
PC"f.1
1107
Ali Khan v. State
(Shahzado Shaikh. 1)
20111
sectiol\
9
i~
prnvilil!d.
Ther2for~.
for \!uch
r~~~nn~.
Aft. \991
has to be constructed strictly aud the relevant provilii()n~ of law
dealing with the procedure as well as furnishing the proof like
the report of expert, etc. are to · be followed strictly ill the
interest of justice, otherwise in such-like cases it would be
impossible to hold that total commodity re(.;{)vered from his
possession was Charas. However, · in given facts and
circumstances of the case, it would be presumed that sample was
taken out frolll only one road.
far as remaining rods are
concerned, in absence of any sample taken out from them, it
would not be possible to hold that they were the rods of charas
or otherwise. Therefore, taking into consider this aspect of the
case, we are
the opinion that for such reason, the case of the
prosecution has become doubtful, as such, sentence awarded to
appellant by the trial Court and maintained by the High Court is
110t sustainable."
As
of
IV. Driver of vehicle was 110t examined by the prosecution as he was
given up by the prosecution. which is also fatal for prosecution
case.
V.
The place of alleged occurrence/recovery was a busy road, but
no private witnesses were assodated with the alleged recovery.
Compliance of section 103, Cr.P.C. was not made. In such
circumstances, alleged recovery becomes· highly doubtful.
Reliance was also placed on the fol~owillg judgmel1c.:In the case of Nawab Ali v. The State NLR 1995 SD 374 The
Hon'ble Court held as under:"Recovery of contraband from a public place without associating
member of public with recovery, cannot be made basis of
conviction under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of
Hadd) Order, 1979".
VI. The trial Court has taken into consideration the confessional
statement of co-accused while convicting the present appellant.
The present appellant was not tried jointly with the, co-accused
who made a judicial confession as such the confession of coaccused has no evidentiary value in respect . of .the present
appellant. In this respect, reliance was placed on tollowing
judgment:In the case of Ahmad Sher and another v. The State PLD 1995
FSC 20 held as under:"Contession of a co-accused .c annot be used as a substantive
piece of evidence to make it ·basis of conviction of another
•
rCr.1J
1108
PAKISTAN CRiMIrf"AL LAW JOURNAL
[VoL XLIV
accused. It can, however, be used .as a corroborative piece of
evidence . There should be other substantive piece of evidence
available on record against a.ccused before confession of coaccused can be used as corroborative evidence."
VII . Learned counsel for the appellant also pleaded that, in the last
resort, keeping in view the age factor at' the appellant, who is
about 65 years old, his sentence, may be considered as have
been already undergone.
10. Learned counsel for the State on the 'other hand supported the
impugned judgment with the following contentions:-l.
That the appellant was arrested on the spot,. red-hand~d.
II.
That the Exh.Pl and Exh.P.2 indh:ated that the case property
was produced before the Court in case of accused Ali Khan.
III. That the case property was destroyed under the orders of the
trial Court on 24 c2-2009in respect of which copy of destruction
report was exhibited Exh.P.WA/6 and its was a huge quantity of
heroin.
.
IV. Both the reports of FSL are positive.
V.
There is no enmity of the prosecution witnesses with the
appellant.
.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State
. Counsel at length. The entire evidence available on record has been
carefully and minutely perused and considered including the impugned
judgment in the light of thecolltentiolls raised by the learned counsel for
the parties . It is admitted fact that the conviction of the appellant has
been based on the evidence of P.WA Sirbland Khan, Investigating
Officer, and his statement was recorded after 14 years of occurrence, but
the. defence could not create any doubt in spite of lencthy crossexamination. P.W.4 after receiving spy information he made Nakabandi
on the main road leading towards Gulbandi, stopped Datsun/Pickup
No.DR-7S1 and on search he recovered . 11-·112 kilograms of heroin A
contained in different bags from the possession of appellant Ali Khan and
his co-accusedZafar. The co-accused Zafar was convicted in this case
vide judgment dated 23-2-2000 .and sentellc~d to 10 years' Rigorous
Imprisonment and tine of Rs. 20,000 and also 20 stripes. The accused
Zafar completed his sentenc·e but the present appellant remained
absc6nder for about 14 years and was declared proclaimed offender. The
case of present·appellant is of same nature, and same set of evidence has
been nroduced by the prosecution against present appellant. The
PC,..IJ
20111
1109
Ali Khan v. State'
(Shahzado Shaikh, 1)
witnesses were found credible. All the recovery witnesses bad
corroborated each other and supported recov..:ry
11-112 kg. ot' heroin
from the accused which on chemical analysis was confirmed to be
heroin. Such a huge quantity of heroin could not be falsely planted on
the ac ,~used. Accused had failed to establish his plea of false implication
and to rebut the prosecution version. No enmity against police witness
had been proved on record . Delay for sending .the sample to Chemical
Examiner for chemical examination would be immaterial as two samples
. were sent in time 011 14-7-1996 10 the Chemical Examiner, which were
tested positive . Additional twelve samples were sent Oil 15-10-1996,
which also were. tested positive. Therefore beginning from the first
samples , which tested positive, there was no ·delay . Complainant had no
reason for false implication of the accused. Such huge quantity of heroin
(eleven and half kilograms) could not be planted against the accused.
Oft"enc.;e of possession of this huge quantity of heroin was proved against
the accused. It has also been argued on behalf of appellant that the
provision of section 103, Cr.P .C. was not complied with by Police,
neither any pri vate person was taken to be witness of the recovery, nor
any other independent person was associated at the time of recovery of
heroin from the possession of appellant. This objection has no substance,
as it is well-settled principle now that the provision of section 103,
Cr.P.C. would be attracted orily when a definite and positive place in a A
locality is required to be searched . Obviously a moving vehicle or person
travelling therein does not fall within the detinition of a tixed place. 111
this connection reliance has been placed on Tank Steel and Re-Rolling
Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC, 69. The huge
quantity of contraband hn been recovered from the personal possession
of the appellant and the Teport of Chemical Examiner is positive and the
same did not suffer from any intirmity. Therefore , provision of section
103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not strictly attracted and
Police officers were competent witnesses of recovery who clearly
deposed and corroborated regarding recovery of heroin from the
possession of the appellant, as such plea of violation of section 103,
Cr.P.C . is not sustainable. Evidence of Police official in the
circumstances and incriminating evidence , further corroborated cannot
be brushed aside merely ori the ground that they belong to Police torce.
Statements of these ·witnesses, in spite of cross-examination, were
consistent. It is also contende.d by learned counsel for the appellant that
confessional statement of co-accused cannot be used against present
appellant, as the present appellant was Dot tried along with the coaccused who made the confessional statement. It is very clear from the
record.that the confession was truly made by the co-accused, voluntarily .
The present appeJlant remained absconder/proclaimed offender for more
than 14 years, so that the co-accused was tried earlier. Mere tact that
this confession was made by a person who was tried in same crime
or
rC,.1J
1110
PAKISTAN CRIMINAL.LAW JOURNAL
, rVo1.XLlV
report, when the, appellant was absconding for a long period Qf about 14
years, would not be, sufficient to rej~ct the same 011 this ground.
12, The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant t1~at there A
are con'tradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses is not based
on factual analysis, as 110 specific material contradiction could be pointed
out. On the contrary the witnesses have remained very consistent about
the facts of the very same accused, caught and arrested red handed, with
the stated quantity of hetoill, with very vivid description of all related
circuritstances and details. '
13 ,the contention of the learned counsel for the appdJant about the
destruction of the case property, and two FSL reports, ' both being
positive, have been convincingly rebutted, by the learned counsel for
State, based on facts, and the court orders in this respect, as discussed
above.
14. So far reliance on Muhammad Hashim v. The State PLD 2004
SC 856, is concerned, it may be pointed out that the same is not
congruent to the present casein appeal. In the precedent case it was
observed t1lat "Nothing is available 011 record 10 show whellrer sample
for eXamination by ,Chemical Examiller was taken oul from each r'Jd to
ascertain'that 288 rods were of charas.or some other ,commodity, ha ving
resemblance with the colour of charas l.ike Oil Cake (Kltal) etc ...... "'\
whc'reas in
" the present case it is very much clear on record that samples
were ~ken from all the bags, and there was no confusion or any con~rary
'contention to the nature, and quantity of the commodity,
B
.
15. The record shows that the driver of vehicle was not considered
necessary for examination asper statement of learned Publk Prosecutor
for State. Furthermore, learned counsel for the State rightly poillted out
that the appellant never cited the driver on his side,
16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that procurement of
private witness was necessary .for preparing recovery memo as the
recovery was effected from the accused in a public ' place, i.e ., a road
side by putting a barricade. In this regard, the very term 'public place'
itself needs examination.
'
17. Generally speaking by the term 'Public 'place' is understoc)d an
open place with free access, where people go, no matter whether they
have a right to go or not, ' without any hindrance or interference-.
Specifically speaking 'Public place' is ,one to which public must have C
right of access, although mere factthat public have access is not enough.
(Also see K. 1. Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary) But in legal parlance, it has
different implications, depending upon its locus, public purpose, etc.
IIr•.(.., ·
2011t
A Ii Kllan v. State
(Shahzado Shaikh, 1)
1111
18, 'Public Plac~' (Latin: locu~ publicu:;) rna y be a location ~at
local, State, or national government maintains for public use . (BIliclc's
Law Dictionary) Under Roman Law,it was a parcel of public land, a
property of Roman people, protected by interdicts agaillstviolation by .
private individuals. (Adolf Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman
Law 568 (1953). 'Public Place' is a place to which people resort, though
without individual legal title.
19. Once free access is denied, asin this case, barricade .was put up, C
hindrance was created, people lost free access, and particularly in the
event of police action ,or operati.on, no one' would like to linger on or
loiter around, except passing through without even a moment mpre than
necessary. In such a situation, it loses 'basic ingredients and qualities of
being a public place, and it would IlOt remain open in the sense of a
public place, even temporarily. where private individuals would be freely
a vailable to come forward and be natural witnesses against all dangers of
possible police encounter and all odds of potential litigation.
20 . Therefore case Of Nawab Ali v. The State NLR 1995 SD 374.
cited by the learned counsel for appellant. does not coincide with the
circumstances of the pres~nt case under discussion.
I
21. In such a situation, procuremeJ~t ot' private individual witnesses
would not be safely expected, without running a risk of stock witnesses D
'
for which Police otherwise is blamed to rear them . '
22. Furthermore. neither the raid was organized. nor the net was
thrown on a private place , so that non-compliance of section 103 Cr.P .C.
could, be strictly questioned.
23 . Learned counsel contended that ,trial Court has taken into
consideration the confessional statement of co-accused while convicting
the present appellant, citing case of Ahmad Siler and another v. The
State NLR 1995 SD 543 . It would be seen on careful analysis thet the
learned trial Court has taken into consideration
other relevant factors
laid dowil by the Federal Shariat Court. In this case, Le., confession of
the ,co-accused has not been used as substantive' piece of evidence to make it basis of cOllviction of the appellant., It i,s. however; detinitely a
corroborative piece of evidence . There is other substantive piece of
evidence available on record against the .appellantandthe confessional
statement " of the co-accused has rightly been used as corroborative
evidence .
.
,
all
24. Learned counsel for the appellant also pleaded that, ill the last
resort, keeping in view the age factor of tile appellant, his sentence may
be reduced. Here,it may be pointed out that old age, if .treated as a
mitigating fact?r, has different conSiderations based on different
1112
PAKISTAN CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
[Vo\. XLIV
circumstances e.g.; in bail matters and cases of cOllvictions. In this case
the appellant committed the offence on 6-7-1996 and remained absconder
for about 14 years ~ The quantity of heroin found with him was 5-112
kilograms and 6 kilograms of heroin with his co-accused, ~hich is
sufficient to affect thousands of members of families of potential victims
of its dangerous use. Thus no leniency is warranted.
25. In view of above discusSion I am of the view that the judgment
dated 25-10-2010 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge/lzati
ZilaQazi, Duneer at Daggar in case No.1/2. does lIot suffer from any
infirmity Or error meriting any interference by . this Court. Same is E
accoraingly maintained and the appeal is" dismissed accordingly . Benetit
()f section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall however, ,remain intact. These are the
reasons of my short dated 28-3-2011.
H.B.T.l211FSC
Appeal dismissed.