accused was not denied---Customs officials MUHAMMAD AKHTAR had made consistent statements on material SHABBIR, J.---Muhammad Arshad points against the accused who was not Qayyum appellant was tried by the learned known to them earlier---Accused had not Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi in a urged any animosity against the Customs case F.I.R. No.606 dated 28-11-2004 under Officials, who were competent prosecution section 9/C of C.N.S.A., 1997 registered at witnesses---Minor discrepancy with regard Police Station Airport, Rawalpindi, who to the date pointed out by the accused was vide judgment dated 14-1-2006 had not sufficient to discard the prosecution convicted the appellant under section 9/C evidence and the concerned document C.N.S.A., 1997 and sentenced him to itself---Accused did not appear as his own imprisonment for 14 years' R.I. With a fine witness as required under 5.340(2), of Rs.1,00,000 or in default thereof to Cr.P.C.
To contradict the prosecution undergo further one year's R.I. The benefit version---No mitigating circumstances was of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also available for reduction in sentence of extended to the appellant. accused---Conviction and sentence of accused were maintained accordingly.
2. Succinctly, the prosecution story as [pp. 1494, 1495] A, B, C, D, E, F & G narrated in the F.I.R. By Muhammad Sadiq Ali Muhammad v. State 2002 SCMR 54 and Feroze Shah v. State 2002 PCr.LJ 1470 ref.
(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act of 1997)- ----S.9(c)---Evidence---Police witnesses, credibility of---Principle---Police witnesses are competent witnesses in the eye of law and unless they are demonstrated to have any motive or reason to falsely implicate the accused, their testimony cannot be discarded only because they- happened to be employees of police/Customs Department. Fp. 1494) E Qureshi, is that on 28-11-2004 he was posted as Inspector Customs at Islamabad Airport. On the same day, Muhammad Nasir-ud-Din Mehboob Collector Customs Rawalpindi received secret information that heroin may be smuggled through Flight No.PK-785 from Islamabad to London. A raiding party was constituted headed by Malik Amjad Bhutta, Superintendent Customs, Tanvir Naqvi Deputy Superintendent Customs. Mst. Rizwana Moti, Hamad Nawaz Inspector Customs, Amam Ali Hawaldar Customs and Muhammad Sadiq Qureshi. At about 10-30 a.m. During the clearance of flight No.PK785, a passenger, whose name later on came into his knowledge through British passport and PIA Air Ticket as Muhammad Arshad Qayyum son of Abdul Qayyum r/o Batora Ghurghushti Tehsil Hazro District Attock. At the time, accused was holding 'maroon colour' suitcase and a black colour hand bag. He checked suit case and hand bag. During the search he felt the bottom of suit case heavy. He broke the bottom of suit case and an envelope was recovered from the bottom of "maroon colour suit case". The envelope was wrapped by tape/cellophane when he opened and searched the envelope in presence of P.Ws. Heroin was recovered. He weighed recovered heroin in presence of P.Ws. And its weight was 2500 grams. 10 grams heroin was separated for chemical analysis. He prepared two separate sealed parcels. Recovered heroin P-1 was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.A.
Attested by Syed Tanvir Naqvi and Hamad Nawaz P.Ws. He also took into possession suit case P-2, 30 suit pieces P-3/1-30, turban P-4, five books P-5/1-5 Sherwani P-6, Pajama P-7 through recovery memo. Exh.P.A. During the personal search of accused British Passport P-7/A, PIA ticket P-8, purse P-9, key P-10, Pakistani currency P-11 (Rs.1000), British currency (200 Pounds) P-12 I.D. Card P-13, he secured the same through recovery memo. Exh.P.B. From the search of hand bag P.14, Sweater P-15, T-Shirt P-16, belt P-17, audio cassettes P-18, 107, DVD P-19/1-3, Cigarette lighters P-20/1-10 and secured the same through recovery memo. Exh.P.C. In presence of afore-mentioned P.Ws. He was sent for trial.
3. The charge was framed under section 9(c) of CNSA 1997, against the appellant to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused-appellant, the prosecution had examined as many as five P.Ws. Namely, Muhammad Sadiq Qureshi Custom Inspector P.W.1, Syed Tanvir Ali Naqvi P.W.2, Asghar Ali Saleem Customs Inspector P.W.3, Khalid Javed Customs Inspector P.W.4 and Muhammad Ashraf, S . -I. /P. W .5.
5. Ocular account of the incident was furnished by the complainant Muhammad Sadiq Qures'hi P.W.1, and he was supported by Syed Tanvir Hussain Naqi P.W.2, the eye-witness of the occurrence.
6. Asghar Ali Saleem Customs Inspector/P .W .3 after conducting investigation of the case had found the appellant guilty and challaned him.
7. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused-appellant had refuted the prosecution case against him, alleging that he has falsely been involved in this case. The appellant opted not to appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. As his own witness. He however, produced certain document in this defence.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that as per F.I.R., the offence was committed on 28- 11-2004. According to the record, the date of the F.I.R. Is mentioned as. 29-11-2004. In this regard, he has also referred the statement of Muhammad Sadiq Qureshi P.W.1, wherein, he has stated that he has dispatched the complaint Exh.P.D. On 28-11-2004 at 11-00 a.m. And the date on the recovery memos. Exh.P.A. P.C. P.D. As well as in the said F.I.R. Is mentioned as 29-11-2004 but he admitted that this note is not of his own hands. Learned counsel further argued that out of huge quantity of heroin of 2500 grams only 10 grams was separated for chemical analysis which is insufficient proof to establish that the recovered material was heroin or something else. He lastly argued that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. On the other hand learned APG has vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, contending that the appellant was checked and hauled up at the Airport and from his personal search and luggage, huge quantity of heroin was recovered from his possession and further no enmity or mala fide on the part of customs authorities against the appellant has been established by the learned counsel for the appellant.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. As per prosecution story, the appellant was going to London on 28-11-2004 through PIA Flight No.PK 785 from Islamabad to London; a secret information was received by Collector Customs, who had constituted a raiding party which had intercepted the appellant and made search of his luggage on the said date. After completing the legal formalities, he sent the report Exh.P.A. For registration of the case and on the same day, F.I.R. No.606 ,(Exh.P.D./1) had been lodged. The recovery memos. Exhs.P.A., P.B. And P.C. Were prepared at the. Customs House on the said date i.e. 28-11-2004. The date on all the exhibits/documents i.e. Complaint, F.I.R., and recovery memos prepared by P.W.1 Inspector Customs, have been attested on the same date and those bear the signatures of attesting witnesses as well as the date which is 28-11-2004. After perusal of these documents, we find that while completing the file of the case against the reference of the case, the date has inadvertently been mentioned by some police officials as 29-11-2004, it would not mean that the occurrence has taken place on 29-11-2004. So far as this contention of learned counsel for the appellant is concerned that on the heading of these documents, the date is mentioned as 29-11-2004 while this factual position of the case cannot be ignored that in the F.I.R., and bottom of the recovery memos under the signatures of the executants and the attesting witnesses the date is mentioned as 28-11-2004, therefore, this argument of learned counsel for the appellant being misconceived is repelled.
12. The other aspect of the case is that the appellant was going to. London through PIA Flight No.PK 785, he was checked by the Customs Staff on the said date at Airport and not only heroin was recovered from his suit-case rather his PIA ticket for the said date, Purse, Key, Currency notes valuing Rs.1,000 British Currency valuing Rs.200 pounds, women cloths, books, sherwani, pajama etc:, Exhs.P1 to P.30 have also been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Had the appellant not intended to travel on 28-11-2004 and not reached on the said date and if according to the learned counsel for the appellant these recoveries were effected on 29-11-2004 for what purpose the appellant was found and hauled up on the said date while there was no proof of his travelling to abroad on 29-11-2004.
13. The statement of Muhammad Sadiq Qureshi Custom Inspector P.W.1 that he intercepted the appellant and made personal search and luggage of the appellant, was also supported by attesting witness of recovery Syed Tanvir Hussain P.W.2, who deposed in line with P.W.1. P.W.5 Muhammad Ashraf, also stated that he received complaint Exh.P.D. On 28-11-2004 and converted the same into F.I.R. Exh.P.D./1. He identified his signatures on the F.I.R.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any material contradiction except the date which was inadvertently written by one of the police A employees against case F.I.R. No.606 of 2004 as 29-11-2004 instead of 28-11-2004. Further the Chemical Examiner's Report Exh.P.E. Is also in positive.
15. The recovery evidence supported by the Chemical Examiner Report is beyond doubt and confidence inspiring Furthermore, the accused-appellant had not challenged the nature of recovered substance other than the sample separated for chemical analysis being not 'heroin' or 'narcotics' before the trial Court or this Court. Neither the parcel of narcotics material has been tampered with nor it was demanded by the appellant to open that parcel in the Court to substantiate that it was other than narcotics material. Moreover, no question was put to P.Ws. At the trial stage by the appellant that remaining parcel of heroin produced in the Court was not of same nature. So much so, it has also not been prayed before the Court below that entire material be sent to the Chemical Examiner Office for Report as to challenge that it was not a narcotic substance. In this respect, reference can be made to case of Ali Muhammad v. State (2002 SCMR 54).
16. The factum of arrest of the appellant had also not been denied. The C P.Ws. Who are the Customs Employees have made consistent statements on material points and the appellant had miserably failed to point out any discrepancy in their statements. Minor discrepancy with regard c to the date pointed out by the appellant, is not sufficient to discard the statements of prosecution witnesses and the documents itself.
17. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant has admitted and claimed his British Passport, Identity Card, hand bag, sweater, T-shirt, belt, Audio Cassettes, Cigarettes lighter etc. He also admitted his presence at the Airport while taking defence plea, that at the counter during his personal search some altercation took place between him and Customs Officials and stated that the alleged narcotics material was recovered from the possession of some one else.
18. The most important features of the case is that the learned counsel for the appellant has not urged any rancour or animosity against the customs officials/ D P.Ws. With the accused-appellant who was not known to them earlier and in such-like case no presumption can be drawn that the customs witnesses were lying. It is already settled law by the superior Courts that police witnesses are competent witnesses in the eyes of law and unless it could be demonstrated that police officials had any motive or reason to falsely implicate the accused, their testimony could not be E discarded only because they happened to be employees of Police/Customs department.
Reference in this context, can be made to case of Feroze Shah v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 1470).
19. Pursuant to above discussion we find that prosecution has brought sufficient material on record to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime and consequential guilt. The defence has miserably failed to extract any material discrepancies or contradictions from the statements of P.Ws. The appellant did not appear as his own witness as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. To contradict the prosecution story which is also fatal to him. Having considered these circumstances and given our anxious consideration to all the aspects of the case we are unable to find any extenuating circumstances that can be urged in favour of the accused-appellant. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.