' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 5-11-2000 the complainant Inspector Muhammad Anwar Durrani of C.I.A. Police along with his subordinate staff was on patrol duty. During patrolling at 9-00 p.m. He received spy information about two persons standing near Allied Bank having Charas in their possession. On the said information he reached the place of incident at about 12-10 a.m. In the night of 6-11-2000 where he saw a person sitting on a Gatta Carton and another person was standing there. On seeing the police party the person who was sitting on Gatta ran away whereas the person who was standing near the Gatta also tried to escape from there but was apprehended. On inquiries, that person disclosed his name as Zulfiqar alias Billa, the appellant. He was interrogated. On which he disclosed that the carton contained Charas, therefore, the complainant opened the Gatta Carton and found 42 packets of Charas lying there. He weighed each packet which came to be of 1 Kg. And total weight of the Charas was 42 kg.
Eight packets of 8 kg. Were separated for Chemical Analyzer report. The property was sealed. The appellant was arrested and then he was brought to the C.I.A. Centre where he lodged the F.I.R. The copy of which was sent to Police Station for incorporating it in 154, Cr.P.C. Book. After completing the usual investigation the appellant was challaned in the Court.
2. The learned Special Judge CNS, Hyderabad tried the appellant and convicted him for offence punishable under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.300,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For 2 years more with benefit of section 382-B, Cr . P . C . Under the impugned judgment dated 20-9-2004.
3. We have heard the Advocates for the appellant, A.A.-G. For the State and perused the record of this case very carefully.
4. The learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that the C.I.A. Police had no power to investigation the case, therefore, the investigation was illegal. He has relied upon Zeeshan Kazmi v.
State (PLD 1997 SC 406). He has further stated the C.I.A. Police never leave the Police Station for patrolling duty but they leave the Police Station to investigate a crime, therefore, the story furnished by the CIA Police is highly improbable. He has further stated that there is conflict between the property sealed at the place of incident and the property received by Chemical Analyzer as only one slab in each packet was sealed by the C.I.A. Inspector but the Chemical Analyzer found two slabs in each packet. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful. He relied upon Jeejal v. State (2005 M LD 1261) and Zareef Khan v. State (2005 M LD 501). He has further stated that there was enmity between the accused and the complainant, therefore, he has been falsely involved in the case.
5. Conversely, the learned A.A.-G. Has stated that even if the C.I.A. Police investigated the case then it will not vitiate the trial and had also relied upon the same authority on which the learned Advocate for the appellant has relied. He has further stated that it is not necessary that the C.I.A.
Police can leave the Centre only for the purpose of investigation of crime but they can also leave the Centre for the purpose of patrolling to check the crime. He has further stated that there is no difference between the property sealed at the place of incident and property receive by Chemical Analyzer as the evidence has come on the record that the property was found in packets and 8 packets were sent to Chemical Analyzer; that the witnesses did not state the number of slabs found in the packets. As regards the defence of the appellant he has stated that the documents produced by the appellant in his evidence were not shown to the complainant at the time of his evidence; that the documents are forged documents which have been prepared to create a defence, therefore, he has supported the impugned judgment.
6. We have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the evidence with the help of learned Advocate for the appellant and found that the prosecution examined two witnesses to prove the case and produced Chemical Analyzer report. The two witnesses examined by the prosecution are complainant Inspector Muhammad Anwar of CIA Police and Mashir -S.I.P., Qamar Zaman. Both the witnesses gave the same details of the incident as disclosed in the earlier part of the judgment. Both the witnesses specifically stated that on the information supplied to them by the appellant after his apprehension, the Gatta Carton was opened which contained 42 packets containing Charas. Both the witnesses did not state the number of slabs lying in each packet. They disclosed that the total weight of 42 packets was 42 kg. The complainant specifically stated that each packet was weighed and its weight came to be 1 kg. The Mashir P.W.2 stated that 42 packets were secured from the carton and weight of one slab was 1 kg. In the cross-examination a question was put to the Mashir that entire property was weighed at one time which he denied but further added that each packet was weighed separately. Taking the advantage of the above statement of the witness the learned Advocate for the appellant based his arguments that each packet contained one slab. It is well settled that one sentence of an evidence cannot be read in isolation.
The entire evidence of a witness is to be taken into consideration and total effect of the said statement is to be given. In the statement the P.W.2 Mashir did not disclose that each packet contained two slabs or one slab but he was silent with regard to the number of slabs in each packet. In the earlier part of his statement he clearly stated that there were 42 packets in the carton and total weight of the packets was A2 kg. No doubt, the witness stated in a single sentence that each slab weighed 1 kg. But the said fact has been clarified by him in the cross-examination where he categorically stated that each packet was weighed separately. Thus, this discrepancy would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution to hold that the packet contained one or two slabs at the time of sealing the same. The total effect of the evidence of both the witnesses is that each packet was weighed at the time of recovery and the weight of each packet was 1 kg. And that the slabs lying in each packet were not counted. If there would have been discrepancy between the evidence and the Mashirnama of recovery then the said discrepancy could have been brought on record by the defence counsel in the cross-examination but no question with regard to such discrepancy has been brought on record. As such, it can fairly be presumed that in the Mashirnama there was no mention of number of slabs in each packets. P.W.2 further stated that 8 packets were sealed separately for sending the same to the Chemical Analyzer for examination and report. Even then he did not state that each packet contained one or two slabs. From the evidence of both the witnesses it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that only 8 packets secured from the property were sent to Chemical Analyzer for examination and report. The Chemical Analyzer report has been produced in evidence as Exh.14/C. This shows that the Chemical Analyzer had received 8 packets. After opening packets he found each packet contained two slabs. The total weight of the 8 packets was 8020 grams and the net weight of the slabs was 7900 grams. Thus there is no discrepancy in the property sealed at the place of incident and the property received by the Chemical Analyzer.
7. As regards the investigation conducted by the C.I.A. Police, no doubt, C.I.A. Police has no authority to investigate the case unless the same is entrusted to them under the orders of superior officer.
The complainant, in his statement, stated that he had received permission for investigating the case through D. S.P. , C . I. A . This statement of the witness was not challenged by the defence in the cross-examination. However, even if the investigation is conducted by an officer who is not authorized by law to do so then under section 156(2), Cr.P.C. The investigation cannot be questioned. After investigation the Court took cognizance, as such, if any illegality was committed during investigation the same was cured. However, the same illegality had not vitiated the trial as held in the case of State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SCM R 408).
8. The appellant took the defence that he was a builder. The complainant booked a flat in a scheme but he did not pay the instalments and wanted to sell the flat to someone else which was objected, therefore, a dispute arose between them, hence this case has been filed to pressurize him to surrender to the complainant's terms. Such defence was put to the complainant but he specifically denied 'the same. The appellant, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And statement on oath stated such facts. He also produced an application for allotment of flat in the scheme known as `Khursheed Town' and some payment receipts. He also produced a telegram sent by Mubashir Ali, brother of the appellant on 6-11-2000 complaining the arrest of the appellant.
9. As regards the application for allotment of flat which has been produced as Exh.19/B, the same was not shown to the complainant at the time of cross-examination, as .Such, the said piece of evidence was not confronted to the complainant to have obtained some explanation or to see the signatures available on the application. However, we have gone through the signatures allegedly signed by the complainant and compared the same with the signatures available on record. After examining the same we found firstly, that there are two signatures on the application appearing at page No.4 but both the signatures are not tallying with each other. Furthermore, both the signatures were compared with the admitted signatures of the complainant but we found that the signatures were also not tallying with each other as there. Was slow drawn movement, hesitation, tremor, pen lift and stop etc. In the signatures found on Exh.19/B. Furthermore, the original application form was not produced in evidence but only a photostat copy was produced. This also adversely affect the defence of the appellant. As such, the said application cannot be safely relied upon. The other documents viz. Receipts and statement do not bear the signatures of the complainant. Even the originals of these documents were not produced but Photostat copies of the same were produced which has also materially affected the said documents.
10. As regards the telegram Exh.19/A, the author of the document viz. Brother of the appellant was not produced in Court. No evidence has been led to prove the telegram. Thus, the defence taken by the appellant appears to be afterthought and has been prepared to save the appellant from the case.
11. The appellant also examined Iqbal Hussain on the point that the appellant was arrested on 20- 11-2000 by the complainant. As against this evidence there is overwhelming evidence led by the prosecution to 'support their case and which has been proved in accordance with law. As such, the said evidence cannot be safely relied upon.
12. After considering the material available on the record we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt.
13. Above are the reasons of our short order dated 31-1-2006, by which we hat dismissed the appeal.