' M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.---This judgment shall dispose of four Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. 2219 of 2003, 2165 of 2003, 132-J of 2004 and 1073 of 2004 filed by Zulfiqar Ali, Muhammad Sarfraz, Quraish Muhammad and Muhammad Shehbaz, appellants respectively against judgment, dated 20-11-2003 handed down by a learned Judge Special Court, Lahore constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Zulifqar Ali, Muhammad Sarfraz and Quraish, appellants were tried in case F.I.R. No,13 of 2001, dated 6-6-2001 under section 9(c)/15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Police Station ANF, Lahore. They were convicted under section 9(C) read with section 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,3,00,000 each or in default of payment thereof to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for one year each. The learned Trial Court was further pleased not only to forfeit the assets derived by the convicts from drug trafficking but also forfeited the vehicle used in the commission of crime. All the said three appellants have challenged their conviction while Muhammad Shehbaz, who claimed to be owner of the vehicle, has challenged the impugned judgment to the extent of forfeiture of the vehicle.
2. The prosecution's case was that on the basis of a secret information received by Anti-Narcotic Force, Lahore on 6-6-2001, a raiding party was constituted under the supervision of Muhammad Riaz Sumaro, Assistant Director ANF and headed by Muhammad Arshad, S.-I. (P.W.5), which included Muhammad Hussain, Constable P.W.4, Subedar Muhammad Siddique, Naib Subedar Mazhar Hussain, Muhammad Sarwar, A.S.-I. And eleven other constables: The raiding party reached Multan Chungi and guarded the area. At about 4.15 P.M. a Toyota Hilux No,RIL-6058 arrived there from the side of Chowk Yateem Khana. As pointed out by the informer the raiding party intercepted the vehicle. Saif Ullah (since acquitted) was found driving the vehicle while Zulfiqar, appellant, was found sitting on the front seat Muhammad Sarfraz alias Safa, accused, and Quraish Muhammad were found sitting on the rear seat, On search a plastic bag containing 20 packets of Charas weighing 20 kgs was found lying under the feet of Zulfiqar, appellant, 20 packets of Charas weighing 20 kgs was recovered from the bag of Quraish Muhammad and 40 packets of Charas weighing 40 kgs were recovered from the bag of Sarfraz, appellant. 'All the three bags and the vehicle were seized by Muhammad Arshad Khan, S.I. Vide Memo Exh.P.A. One gram from each packet was separated and made into three sealed parcels. As per report of the Chemical Examiner, dated 9-6-2001 Exh.PH all the three sealed parcels contained Charas.
3. After submission of the challan all the four accused were put on trial. They were formally charge- sheeted on 22-11-2001. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and tendered in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PH in order to substantiate the charge. It may be observed that in view of statement of Muhammad Arshad Khan (P.W.5) that it was not in the knowledge of Sail Ullah, accused that some persons had loaded narcotic in his wagon, the learned trial Court acquitted Saif Ullah accused, on 22-10-2002 under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Munawar Hussain Constable, P.W.4 and Muhammad Arshad Khan, S.I., P.W.5, deposed about the recovery of Charas from the possession of appellants. Ahmad Jalil Raja, Assistant Dirk'tor ANF, Lahore simply stated that he had prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Sarwar, Muharer A.S.-I. P.W.1, Ghulam Hussain, Constable P.W.3 deposed about the retention of the sample in the Malkhans and its onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner. Qadeer Ahmad Baig, P.W.6, stated that he had formally drawn the F.I.R. On the basis of complaint Exh.PF.
5. The accused in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegation. Quraish Muhammad pleaded as under:-- "The real fact of the matter is that I was coming from a factory at Raiwind. Zulifqar, co-accused, was standing near a Dalla, at Yateem Khana Chowk. An other person Billo was also standing near the Dalla. ' I was coming on a Toytoa Hiluz from Raiwind., I alighted from said vehicle. Zulifqar co- accused told me that he wanted to purchase furniture and he offered me to go with him after the purchase of furniture. Zulfiqar accused is my neighbour in my village. I accompanied them and we were arrested by the narcotic people at Multan Chungi and we were blind folded."
' Sarfraz, accused denied to have been arrested at Multan Chungi. He maintained that he was arrested at Samanabad Morr. In answer to question No,7 he stated as under:-- "The narcotics belonged to someone else who was let off by the ANF people, after having received money from them and the same has been planted upon us. My paternal grandfather was sick. My paternal elder uncle resided in Tajpura Scheme. I went to give him message that my grandfather was seriously ill. He did not meet me. I after giving the message came back at Railway Station.
Saifullah co-accused met me there. He was having a van which he used to ply from our village to our school and I used to travel by that van. Saifullah offered me to go with him. I accompanied Saif Ullah and we went at Morr Samanabad, where we were apprehended. Saifullah had to load some furniture on the van which he had not yet loaded. We were blind folded and were taken to the PS."
' Zulifqar Ali, appellant, in answer to question No, 2 has stated as under:--- "That real fact of the matter is that I came to purchase furniture from Dholanwal Road, near Multan Road. I finalized the purchasing of some furniture from a shop and paid the earnest money. I came on the Multan Road to hire a Dalla to take Furniture. I was settling with the driver of the Dalla, the fare etc. There were two other persons sitting along with the driver in the Dalla, one of them was namely Billo and other was a bearded person. After settling the fare with the driver, I occupied the front seat of the Dalla and closed the door of the vehicle. The Dalla was about to move when some Police people came and they directed all of us to alight from the Dalla and they arrested all of us.
' Quraish Muhammad, appellant, tendered certified copies of two Death Certificates Exh.PB and Exh.DF and certified copies of three Birth Certificates Exh.DC, Exh.DD and Exh.DE. Muhammad Sarfraz besides tendering in evidence a copy of Birth Certificate Exh.DG produced Saif Ullah (D.W.3) and Khadim Hussain (D.W.4) in his defence. Zulfiqar accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
6. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration all thematerial brought on the record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the appellants to the hilt. Accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced as detailed above.
7. The learned counsel for appellants while assailing the conviction, inter alia, argued that the learned trial Court had omitted to specify the place of recovery in the charge-sheet as such the charge was defective; that the prosecution also failed to specify the place of recovery in its evidence with certainty; that the case property was not produced before the trial Court and exhibited in evidence; that the report of Chemical Analysts does not contain reasons as such it is vague and cannot be used as incriminating piece of evidence.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of ANF supported the judgment. He maintained that the P.Ws. Belonged to Discipline Force, who had no motive to plant false recovery against the appellants. He maintained that the vehicle was intercepted at Multan Road near Multan Chungi, opposite Wandat. Road and the location of Couple Marriage Hall wrongly given by the Investigating Officer due to inadvertence would not make the recovery of Charas from the possession of appellants doubtful in any manner. He further argued that the omission to mention that placeof recovery in the charge-sheet has not caused any prejudice to the appellants in their defence, as such the error is of no legal consequences.
9. We have made reappraisal of the entire material in the light of arguments advanced from both sides. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that it contained date, time and recovery of 80 kgs Charas from a Toyota Hilux No, RIL6059, which was intercepted by raiding party on 6-6-2001 at 4.15 P.M. Certainly, the place where the vehicle had been intercepted had not been specified in it. The question arises as to whether the appellants/accused were misled in their defence in any manner.
The object of the framing of a charge-sheet at the commencement of trial is primarily to enable the accused to know the exact nature of offence, which he had allegedly committed at the particular date and time. The charge framed by the learned trial Court clearly reflects that the appellants had been tried for carrying Charas weighing 80 kgs in the vehicle, which constitute an offence under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act and the accused also never objected during the trial about the nature of offence. The accused in their statements admitted that the said vehicle had been intercepted and they were arrested by ANF Police. The learned counsel for appellants has not been able to show as to how and in what manner the appellants had been misled in their defence by the error in the charge. In the circumstances of case, it cannot be said that no valid charge had been framed against the accused so as to warrant quashing of the conviction as provided under section 232, Cr.P.C.
10. T,he second limb of the argument of the learned counsel for appellants relates to the place of recovery, Munawar Hussain, P.W.4, and Muhammad ArshadKhan P.W.5 both stated that on the basis of spy information the raiding party went to Multan Chungi on 6-6-2001 and established Naka at 4.15 P.M. Muhammad Arshad, P.W.5, in his cross-examination stated that Naka had been established near Couple Marriage Hall where some shops of Rana Plaza were also open. Exh. PG is the rough site-plan prepared by the I.O., in which Naaka has been shown on point "B" in front of Couple Marriage Hall, but opposite Multan Chungi where Wandat Road ends. It may be noticed that there are two major points on Multan Road from Chowk Yateem Khana while going towards Multan. First point is Scheme Morr and the second is Multan Ghungi, which is at a distance of 3/4 kilometers from Chowk Yateem Khana. Couple Marriage Hall is in fact situated near Scheme Morr opposite Sabzazar Colony. Whereas it has been wrongly shown to be opposite to Chungi Multan in the rough site-plan prepared by the I.O. This anomaly created by Muhammad Arshad Khan, P.W.5, may be due to inadvertence. Quraish Muhammad, appellant/accused, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. While explaining the circumstances, under which he was arrested along with Zulifqar, co-accused, admitted that he was arrested by Narcotic People at Multan Chungi. Sarfraz accused, also admitted his arrest from the vehicle driven by Saif Ullah, co-accused (since acquitted), but from Morr Samanabad. Zulifqar Ali, appellant, maintained that he had been arrested by the police at Multan Road, where he was settling affairs with the driver of Dalla. Saif Ullah, co-accused, who after having been acquitted by the trial Court in this very case on 22-10- 2002 appeared in defence of the accused, could not refute that the place of recovery, wherefrom he was arrested, was Multan Chungi. From the material available on the file it is established that Multan Chungi was the place where the aforementioned vehicle was intercepted by ANF Police.
Mere misdescription of few shops at the place of recovery would not render the recovery of 80 kgs of Charas from the vehicle doubtful in which the appellants were found travelling at the relevant time. All the appellants including Saif Ullah acquitted accused belonged to Sheikhupura. They admitted that they had been arrested by the ANF on said date and time. Sarfraz, appellant, maintained that the narcotics belonged to someone else, who had been let off by the ANF and the same had been planted upon him. The appellants have not even suggested to the P.Ws. As to why they had been falsely involved. In absence of any bitterness on the part of the prosecution witnesses the pleaof false involvement and substitution for the real culprits urged by the learned counsel for appellants cannot be accepted. We find no reason to discard the evidence of two prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of the alleged quantity of Charas from the possession of appellants. Both the P.Ws., stated that Exh.P.1 was taken into possession vide recovery Memo Exh.PA, which indicates that the case property was produced before the learned trial Court and exhibited in evidence. Here it may be observed that during the pendency of trial after recording of statement of P.Ws. On an application moved by the concerned S.H.O. Mr. Haider Amin, Judicial Magistrate Section 30/Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore destroyed the case property weighing 79.820 kgs as per order, dated 26-2-2003 passed by the learned trial Court in terms of section 516- A, Cr.P.C. No, objection had been raised by the accused regarding genuineness of the case property during the statements of P.Ws. The report of Chemical Examiner Exh. PH clearly shows that three sealed packets received in his office were found to contain Charas. It was not necessary for the Chemical Examiner to give any other detail.
11. As sequel to the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution had established its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We find no substance in appeals (Crl. Appeal No,2219 of 2003, Crl. Appeal No,2165 of 2003 and Crl. Appeal No,132-J of 2004), which are accordingly dismissed.
12. Criminal Appeal No,1073 of 2004 pertains to the forfeiture of the above said vehicle. The appellant claims to be owner of this vehicle. Sail Ullah was driving the vehicle at the time of recovery. Acquittal of Saif Ullah, accused, by the learned trial Court shows that the driver ofthe vehicle had no knowledge about the Charas recovered from the bags of the appellants/convicts.
Therefore, the forfeiture of the vehicle, which otherwise belonged to some person other than the driver is held to beillegal and unwarranted by law. We allow Crl. Appeal No,1073 of 2004 and order restoration of the vehicle to its owner. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.