1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.---By this appeal, appellant Muhammad Ismail Siyal has challenged the propriety, legality and validity of the judgment dated 27-10-2005, passed under section 9(c) of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the learned Special Judge Narcotics Shikarpur in Special Case No,148 of 2005 re: State v. Muhammad Ismail vide Crime No,47 of 2005 of Police Station New Faujdri Shikarpur, to suffer 8 years' R.I. And fine of R.100,000 and in case of default in payment of fine, he shall suffer R.I. Of 6 months.
2. ' The facts leading rise to the present appeal in brief are that on 20-3-2005 Javed Muhammad A.S.- I.P. Along with his subordinate staff namely P.C. Liaqaut Ali, P.C. Manthar and P.C. Dildar left police station at about 1300 hours in their official mobile Van No,SP-6318 driven by H.C. Khair Muhammad for patrolling. During the course of patrolling, when they reached at Sunny Petrol Pump they received spy information that a person is standing at Sim Shakh bridge having polythene bag with him which contained Charas. Upon such information they reached at the pointed place and found a person available there, on seeing police party he tried to escape but was apprehended tactfully and polythene bag was secured from him and on search of the said polythene bag, 5 kg Charas was secured. On interrogation he disclosed his name as Ismail son of Mevo Siyal. On his personal search cash of Rs,270 were secured. The 2-1/2 kg Charas was separated and was sealed separately at the spot and Mashirnama of arrest of accused and recovery was prepared at the spot and they returned to the police station where the F.I.R., as stated above, was registered.
3. ' After usual investigation, challan against the appellant was sent in Court to stand trial. Learned trial Court on receipt of the challan supplied copies to the appellant in terms of section 265-C, Cr.P.C., vide receipt Exh.3 and charge was framed on 17-6-2005 vide Exh.4 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. ' After framing the charge, prosecution examined P.W.1 Javed Muhammad Abro A.S.-I.P.
5. Complainant vide Exh.5 who produced Mashirnama of arrest of the accused and recovery vide Exh.5-A, copy of F.I.R., Exh.5-B, Roznamcha entry vide Exh.5-C. P.W.2, PC Liaquat Ali vide Exh.6 and Muhammad Yousif S.I.P/Investigating Officer vide Exh.7 who produced the Chemical Examiner's report vide Exh.7A as well as Roznamcha entry vide Exh.7B. Prosecution closed the side the statement Exh.8.
6. ' The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342(i), Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied to have committed the offence and alleged that he was travelling in a bus from Jacobabad to Larkana and when they reached near Shikarpur Town, the bus was intercepted by the police headed by the complainant who arrested him on the allegation of recovery of Charas. According to him he is innocent and has not committed alleged offence. He has not examined himself on oath nor has examined any witness in his defence.
7. ' Learned trial Court after hearing of learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, hence the present appeal.
8. ' We have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, Advocate for the State.
9. The appellant has vehemently contended that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police who bore enmity with him and that police has managed official witnesses who deposed against him and their testimony could not be considered in convicting him and that no recovery was made from him and the case of prosecution is not free from doubt as such he may be acquitted from the charge.
10. ' Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by the appellant and has contended that the recovery of huge quantity of Charas has been substantiated by leading cogent, convincing and plausible evidence by the prosecution and in rebuttal no evidence has been brought on record to disprove the evidence available on record.
11. According to him no particular of enmity or mala fide has been pleaded against police officials as such their testimony is confidence-inspiring and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and the judgment passed by the learned lower Court does not suffer from any illegality as such the appeal may be dismissed.
12. ' We have considered the arguments advanced by the appellant and the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the entire evidence available on the record.
13. ' The facts of case of prosecution as contained in the F.I.R. Are that when the complainant during the course of patrolling reached near Sunny Petrol Pump they received spy information that a person is available at Sim Shakh situated at some instance from there, who has a polythene bag containing Charas in it. On such information the complainant along with his subordinate staff reached at the pointed place and found the said person available there to whom they apprehended and secured the said polyp iene bag. On search of the said bag, they found 20 slabs of Charas from it which, on weighing, was found 5 Kgs. Out of which 10 slabs weighing 2-1/2 Kgs.
14. Were separated and sealed as sample for chemical-examination and remaining Charas was also sealed separately. Upon personal search of accused, cash Rs,270 and a Casio watch were secured.
15. On preparation of Mashirnama of arrest and recovery; they returned to the police station where the F.I.R. Was lodged.
16. ' The contents of F.I.R., have been supported and corroborated by the complainant Javed Muhammad Abro A.S.-I.P. In his evidence before the learned trial Court. In fact his testimony about recovery of Charas has not received any material dent in his lengthy cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the appellant. In his cross-examination no mala fide or particulars of enmity have been brought on record so as to extend its benefit to the appellant. He has also denied the suggestion in cross-examination that the appellant was apprehended from the bus and beneath passenger seat of some other passenger the Charas was secured but that person was released and the appellant has been implicated, to which he denied. In fact, as discussed above, no particulars of the enmity has been brought on record nor recovery of such a huge quantity of Charas has received any material dent so as to extend its benefit to the appellant.
17. The P.W. Liaquat Ali A who is also Mashir of arrest and recovery has also deposed on the pattern as has been deposed by P.W. Javed Muhammad Abro A.S.-I.P. And he has fully supported and corroborated the recovery of Charas from the appellant. His ocular evidence has not received any material dent in his cross-examination. The testimony of P.W.2 PC Liaquat Ali is fully in consonance with the evidence of P.W.1 Javed Muhammad A.S.-I.P. And the evidence of both these witnesses fully implicates the appellant in the present crime and not a slight discrepancy has been brought on record to create any doubt in the case of prosecution therefore, their evidence towards recovery of huge quantity of Charas from the appellant remains unshaken and fully implicates the appellant in the present crime. The testimony of P.W.3 Muhammad Yousif Investigating Officer also shows that he had sent the sample of Charas to the Chemical Examiner who vide his report Exh.7-A opined it in positive. The chemical examiner's report therefore, shows that the samples sent to him were in fact Charas. The report of Chemical Examiner has not been seriously disputed or doubted by the defence side.
18. ' In fact no material has been brought on record to inflict any major or minor dent in the case of prosecution. The defence of the appellant that he was travelling in a bus and when they reached near Shikarpur, the bus was intercepted by the complainant and his staff who secured Charas beneath seat of other passenger, who was let off by the police and he has been implicated in the present case, does not inspire-confidence for the simple reason that such a huge quantity could not be foisted by the prosecution upon any innocent person. The material available on record therefore, fully implicate the appellant in commission of the present offence as such the trial Court has rightly convicted him and we do not find any justification to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned lower Court.
19. ' The appellant has argued his appeal in person, we have seen the appellant, who is aged about more than 55 years and seems to be an infirm person as such while dismissing his appeal, we had modified his sentence by a short order which is quoted hereinbelow for the sake of convenience.
20. ' Heard appellant in person and the learned State Counsel. For reasons to be recorded later, the sentence is reduced to five years and fine from 1,00,000 to Rs,50,000 and in default, the appellant shall undergo S.I. For three months; with this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
21. ' The above are the reasons of short order.