Pakistan Criminal ,Law Journa - Federal Shariat Courtfederalshariatcourt.gov.pk/Leading Judgements/Justice Shahzado... · possession of co-accused namely Zafar in the ... hy the P.W.6

Forty-fourth year of publication

REGD. No. CPL-03

VOL. XLIV PAR'

Pakistan Criminal ,Law Journa

Editors:

.. [P Cr.L J] JOURNAL· OF CRIMINAL RULINGS

June, .2011 .

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

2011 P Cr. L J 1102

[Federal Shariat Court]

Before Shahz:ado Shaikh. J

ALI KHAN ---Appellant

versus

THE ST A TE---Respondem

[Vol. XLIV

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.ntained, 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 nine witnesses. The gist of prosecution evidence is as follows:--

(i) 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

1106 PAKISTAN CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL [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:-

PC"f.1

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

20111 Ali Khan v. State 1107

rCr.1J

(Shahzado Shaikh. 1)

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. As 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 of 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."

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 .cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence to make it ·basis of conviction of another

•

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 Ali Khan v. State' (Shahzado Shaikh, 1)

1109

witnesses were found credible. All the recovery witnesses bad corroborated each other and supported recov..:ry or 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

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 B were ~ken from all the bags, and there was no confusion or any con~rary 'contention to the nature, and quantity of the commodity, .

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 1111 (Shahzado Shaikh, 1)

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 available 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.

21. In such a situation, procuremeJ~t ot' private individual witnesses I 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 all 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. . ,

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.