2010 SCMR 1962 (PLP)
SALAH-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 SCMR 1962 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | SALAH-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act.(XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 SCMR 1962 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Control of Narcotic Substances Act.(XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 SCMR 1962 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 SCMR 1962 (PLP) (SALAH-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kamran Murtaza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehta W.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 2010.
- 3. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and urged with vehemence that the evidence has not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said contention it is argued that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the factum of recovery of charas by adducing cogent and forthright evidence. It is next argued that the defence version was not kept in juxtaposition which ought to have been considered. It is also contended that no conviction and sentence could have been awarded merely on the basis of statements of official witnesses which escaped the notice of learned Division Bench of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta.
- 4. We have carefully examined the entire record and perused the judgment impugned with the eminent assistance of Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner. After having gone through the entire evidence by keeping the defence version in juxtaposition we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that prosecution has proved the factum of recovery on the basis of forthright and convincing evidence. The statements of prosecution witnesses namely Ghulam Hassan, IP/SHO (P. W.1), Muhammad Ansar, SI (P.W.2) and Amanullah Kethran SIP/I.O. (P.W.3) have been thrashed out in depth who all have supported the prosecution version and stood firm to the test of cross examination and nothing beneficial could be elicited casting any doubt on their veracity. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot from a double seater Datsun pickup bearing registration No.WAC-526 on whose search 20 kilograms hashish (charas) was found for which F.I.R. was got lodged with promptitude and samples from alleged recovered material were sent to Chemical Expert without any loss of time which were found "charas" as a result of chemical examination. No enmity whatsoever has been alleged against the prosecution witnesses and there is hardly any possibility for false implication without having any ulterior motive which was never alleged. In view of the overwhelming prosecution evidence the defence version has rightly been discarded which otherwise is denial simpliciter and does not appeal to logic and reason. We are conscious of the fact that no private witness could be produced but it must not lost sight of that reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases by now has become a judicially recognized fact and there is no way out but to consider the statement of an official witness as no legal bar or restriction whatsoever has been imposed in this regard. We are fortified by the dictum laid down in Hayat Bibi v. Muhammad Khan (1976 SCMR 128), Yaqoob Shah v. The State (PLD 1976 SC 53), Muhammad Hanif v. State (2003 SCMR 1237). It is well settled by now that police officials are good witnesses and can be relied upon if their testimony remained unshattered during cross examination as has been held in case of Muhammad Naeem v. State (1992 SCMR 1617), Muhammad v. State (PLD 1981 SC 635). The contentions of Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner qua violation of provisions as enumerated in section 103, Cr.P.C. seems to be devoid of merit when examined in the light of provisions as contained in section 29 of the Act which provides exclusion of section 103, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in accordance with well settled principles of appreciation of evidence and conclusion arrived at has been affirmed by the learned Division Bench vide judgment impugned which being well based does not warrant interference. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 1-2-2010 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2008).
Ss. 9(c) & 29
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Official witnesses, evidence of
Charas weighing 20 kilograms was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Trial Court
Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was maintained by High Court
Plea raised by accused was that no private witness was associated in recovery proceedings
Accused was apprehended at the spot from a vehicle on whose search 20 kilogram Charas was found for which F.I.R. was got lodged with promptitude and samples from recovered material were sent to Chemical Expert without any loss of time which were found "Charts" as a result of chemical examination
No enmity was alleged against prosecution witnesses and there was no possibility for false implication without having any ulterior motive which was never alleged
Defence version was rightly discarded which was denial simplciter and did not appeal to logic and reason
Reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases had become judicially recognized fact and there was no way out but to consider statement of official witness, as no legal bar or restriction had been imposed in such regard
Police officials were as good witnesses and could be relied upon, if their testimony remained un-shattered during cross examination
Provisions of S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had provided exclusion of S.103, Cr.P.C. during recovery proceedings
Trial Court had appreciated the entire evidence and conclusion arrived at was affirmed by High Court which judgment was well based and did not warrant interference
Leave to appeal was refused. Hayat Bibi v. Muhammad Khan 1976 SCMR 128; Yaqoob Shah v. The State PLD 1976 SC 53; Muhammad Hanif v. State 2003 SCMR 1237; Muhammad Naeem v. State 1992 SCMR 1617 and Muhammad v. State PLD 1981 SC 635 rel.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 1-2-2010 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are to the effect that "on 1-2-2007 Ghulam Hussain Buzdar IP/SHO lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Airport, Quetta stating therein that today he along with his subordinate were busy for the purpose of checking vehicles and suspects at Baleli Check Post, Quetta. At about 11-30 a.m. they stopped a double seater Datsun pickup bearing Registration No. WAC-526 for checking, which was loaded with the passengers coming from Kuchlak, one of the passenger, namely Salah-ud-Din son of Kamla was found in a suspected state having a "Chaddar" lying in his lap, was searched, which resulted in recovery of 10 bundles having 8-bundles, each total 80 pieces hashish weighed and found 20-Kgs". After completion of investigation the petitioner was sent up for trial and on conclusion whereof he was convicted by learned Special Judge CNS, Quetta vide judgment dated 25-3-2008 and sentenced under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.50,000 and in default to suffer S.I. for six months with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred which has been dismissed, hence this petition.
3. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and urged with vehemence that the evidence has not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said contention it is argued that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the factum of recovery of charas by adducing cogent and forthright evidence. It is next argued that the defence version was not kept in juxtaposition which ought to have been considered. It is also contended that no conviction and sentence could have been awarded merely on the basis of statements of official witnesses which escaped the notice of learned Division Bench of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta.
4. We have carefully examined the entire record and perused the judgment impugned with the eminent assistance of Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner. After having gone through the entire evidence by keeping the defence version in juxtaposition we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that prosecution has proved the factum of recovery on the basis of forthright and convincing evidence. The statements of prosecution witnesses namely Ghulam Hassan, IP/SHO (P. W.1), Muhammad Ansar, SI (P.W.2) and Amanullah Kethran SIP/I.O. (P.W.3) have been thrashed out in depth who all have supported the prosecution version and stood firm to the test of cross examination and nothing beneficial could be elicited casting any doubt on their veracity. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot from a double seater Datsun pickup bearing registration No.WAC-526 on whose search 20 kilograms hashish (charas) was found for which F.I.R. was got lodged with promptitude and samples from alleged recovered material were sent to Chemical Expert without any loss of time which were found "charas" as a result of chemical examination. No enmity whatsoever has been alleged against the prosecution witnesses and there is hardly any possibility for false implication without having any ulterior motive which was never alleged. In view of the overwhelming prosecution evidence the defence version has rightly been discarded which otherwise is denial simpliciter and does not appeal to logic and reason. We are conscious of the fact that no private witness could be produced but it must not lost sight of that reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases by now has become a judicially recognized fact and there is no way out but to consider the statement of an official witness as no legal bar or restriction whatsoever has been imposed in this regard. We are fortified by the dictum laid down in Hayat Bibi v. Muhammad Khan (1976 SCMR 128), Yaqoob Shah v. The State (PLD 1976 SC 53), Muhammad Hanif v. State (2003 SCMR 1237). It is well settled by now that police officials are good witnesses and can be relied upon if their testimony remained unshattered during cross examination as has been held in case of Muhammad Naeem v. State (1992 SCMR 1617), Muhammad v. State (PLD 1981 SC 635). The contentions of Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner qua violation of provisions as enumerated in section 103, Cr.P.C. seems to be devoid of merit when examined in the light of provisions as contained in section 29 of the Act which provides exclusion of section 103, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in accordance with well settled principles of appreciation of evidence and conclusion arrived at has been affirmed by the learned Division Bench vide judgment impugned which being well based does not warrant interference. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./S-37/SC Petition dismissed.