2014 PLP 1550 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKAN-ZAI, J.

Instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th January, 2012 passed by the Special Judge, Control of Narcotics Substances Balochistan, Quetta (hereinafter referred to as Special Judge), whereby the appellant was found guilty under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1997), as such; convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lacs), or in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year S.I. However; benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C, was extended in favour of the appellant.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal are that on 9th February, 2011 Complainant Assistant Director ANF, namely Tanveer-ul-Hanif lodged F.I.R. No.01/2011 with ANF Station, Dalbandin, alleging therein that on the fateful day high ups of the ANF received information about trafficking of huge quantity of narcotic from Afghanistan via Noshki to Panjgoor by means of Hino Truck bearing Registration No. TKK-133. On receiving such information, raiding party headed by the complainant was constituted. The party started surveillance of Noshki-Ahmed-Wal Road near Batoo Cross. At about 08.00 a.m. they found a Hino Truck coming from Noshki side. The Truck was signaled to stop. The driver though stopped the truck but the driver and conductor Sameer tried to escape. However; the raiding party over powered them. Upon disclosure and pointation of driver Ghulam Mustafa 95 sakes and 40 bags 'Khaki' were recovered from the cavities specially designed in 'Tank' of the said truck. On checking of 95 sakes and 40 bags 'Khaki' the ANF officials recovered 1900 packets of 'Charas' and in 40 bags `Khaki' Opium weighing 400 kilograms. The ANF official separated 1500 grams 'charas' and 500 grams Opium from the recovered material for chemical analysis; whereas the remaining 'charas' and Opium were sealed in Parcel No. 2 to 96 and taken into possession through recovery memo. At the spot the Registration Book and key of the said truck were taken into possession through recovery memo. On recovery of the above referred contraband items the appellant was arrested and a `marasila' was sent to ANF Station for registration of the case. After registration of case investigation commenced and on completion of the same `challan' was submitted before the learned Special Judge, Balochistan, Quetta.

3. On 14th March, 2011 charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed justice through trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate the accusation examined P.W.1 Assistant Director Tanveer-ul-Haneef, who produced Exh.P/1-A (Murasila), Exh.P/1-B disclosure memo of accused Ghulam Mustafa, P.W.2 Sepoy Muhammad Gulzar, who produced Exh.P/2-C, recovery memo of 1900 kilograms 'Charas' and 400 kilograms Opium, Exh.P/2-D recovery memo of taking into possession, Hino Truck, along with Registration Book P.W.3 Naib Soobedar, Noor Khan who produced Exh.P/3-E, Exh.P/3-F F.I.R., Exh.P/3-G Map, Exh.P/3-H Chemical Analysis Report and Exh.P/3-J `challan'. Thereafter the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating pieces of evidence appearing against him. The appellants besides, examining himself on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., also produced one D.W in his defence. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and evaluating the evidence found the appellant guilty, as such; convicted and sentenced him as mentioned herein above, hence instant appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance. The perusal of record reflects that pursuant to spy information a raiding party was constituted. Since the particulars of the truck were already known to the raiding party, therefore, no sooner the truck reached at Batto Cross, the same was signaled to stop. The truck was stopped by the appellant who tried to make his escape good but was over powered along with the acquitted accused by the raiding party. Soon after capture the appellant made a disclosure which has been produced as Exh.P/1-B, and on the pointation of appellant the raiding party recovered a huge quantity of backed "Charas" and Opium. The P.W.1 has given the full account of episode and produced 'Marasila' Exh.P/1-A and disclosure memo Exh.P/1-B, whereas the P.W.2 has corroborated P.W.1 on each and every material particular by making a detailed statement. P.W.2 has produced Exh. P/2-C, recovery memo of 1900 kilograms 'Charas' and 400 kilograms Opium, Recovery memo of Hino Truck No. TKK 133 and Registration Book Exh. P/2-D. P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer of the case and produced Exh.P/3-E, Fard regarding arrest of appellant and articles recovered during personal search, Exh.P/3-F F.I.R., Exh.P/3-G Map, Exh.P/3-H Chemical Analysis report and Exh.P/3-3 `challan'. A deep analysis of the evidence produced by the prosecution leaves no room for doubt that the prosecution has established the guilt to the hilt beyond reasonable doubt. Neither there is any misreading or non-reading of evidence nor could the learned counsel for the appellant point out the same. The P.W.s inspire confidence and could not be shaken despite lengthy cross-examination. The appellant has admitted in his statement before the Court that the ANF has got no grudge or ill-will against him. Besides, it is incomprehensible why the ANF officials would plant such a huge quantity of narcotic against the appellant from their own pocket, which too, for no rhyme or reasons. The FSL report produced as Exh. P/3-H, proves the fact that the recovered material are `Charas' and Opium. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that sample has not been taken from all the material or the samples do not constitute a representative sample, has got no force for the reason that sample of `Charas' is 1-1/2 kilo grams which itself falls under section 9(c) of the Act, 1997 and secondly the 500 grams if treated to have been taken from one packet that is 10 kilograms per packet, that too, attracts the sentence that has been awarded. Similarly, the submission that on the same set of evidence the appellant has been convicted and the co-accused has been acquitted, is of no avail because the courts are required to 'sift the grain from chaff'. Applying this principle, the findings of the trial Court are above the board and not liable to be disturbed. No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the judgment impugned. On the contrary the perusal of record reveals that the trial Court after proper appraisal of the evidence and attending each and every aspect of the case rightly found the appellant guilty and sentenced him. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the appellant failed to make out a case for interference by us in the judgment impugned, as such; the appeal is dismissed. HBT/31/Bal Appeal dismissed.