' MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J.---This single judgment shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals having been filed by Eran Gul and Rehman Shah appellants against their conviction in case F.I.R. No,238 dated 23-12-2000 offence under section 9(c), C.N.S.A., 1997 Police Station Rawat, District Rawalpindi.
2. Precisely the allegations against the appellants are that on 23-12-2000 at 4-50 p.m, a police party headed by Tajammal Artaza Ali, Excise & Taxation Inspector was present at GT Road neat Channi Bridge in connection with the checking of narcotics, when he received spy information that two persons were bringing narcotics in Car No,KW-9888 from Peshawar. On this information, he with the help of the other excise and police officials blocked the road and apprehended the above numbered car from which 17 bundles of charas weighting 17 k.g were recovered, out of this charas 200 grams were separated for chemical analysis and the sample and the charas were taken into possession by the police vide a recovery memo Exh.PC.
3. During the trial, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses in totality and also tendered in evidence the report of the chemical examiner Exh.PG and thereafter closed the case for the prosecution.
4. The accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., who denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. They did not tender themselves for their examination under sections 340(2), Cr.P.C. No defence witness was examined by them.
5. Learned counsel for Rehman Shah appellant submits that he was a minor and seen sitting besides the seat of the driver. He was just a passenger and no responsibility of the custody of charas could be placed upon the said appellant. He also submits that the prosecution has failed to connect him with the alleged crime and that he deserves the acquittal in the present case.
6. The learned counsel for Eran Gul accused submits that the Excise & Taxation Officer has already received a spy information and that he was having sufficient time before the alleged recovery of narcotics. He is public official and he should have associated the respectable of the locality to authenticate the recovery proceedings and that the alleged recovery is a plantation upon the appellant and that when examined the learned trial court found deficient narcotics in the malkhana and that the recovery of the alleged narcotics becomes doubtful and that benefit of doubt goes to the appellant. He further states that the separated charas was never sealed into separate parcels and thus it loses its authenticity qua all the bundles of the charas allegedly recovered from the vehicle of the above appellant. He says that the prosecution case is comprising of deficient evidence and that on the strength of this evidence the appellant cannot be awarded the imprisonment for life in this case.
7. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposed these appeals and submit that the case against the appellants have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Both the appellants were boarded in one vehicle and that it was from their joint custody that narcotics substance was recovered and that too in bulk. He also submits that such a huge quantity of charas cannqt be planted upon the appellants. The prosecution evidence is consistent and it has brought whom the guilt of both the appellants and that the conviction awarded to them may be maintained.
8. This court has noticed that Bran Gul appellant was driving vehicle No,KW 9888 and 17 k.g. Of charas was recovered there-from. It is impossible that Earn Gul was not aware of the fact, that such a huge quantity of charas was concealed in the said vehicle, we have considered the evidence of the prosecution. He was having the control of the car, which was coming from the side of Peshawar. All the recovery witnesses have categorically stated that the charas weighing 17 k.g.
Was recovered from his car and thus he cannot absolve himself from the responsibility of keeping such a huge quantity of charas.. Resultantly; offence under section 9(c) of C.N.S.A., 1997, stands proved against him. The sentence awarded to him is adequate calling for no interference by this court. Therefore, his convict aid sentence is maintained. His appeal stand dismissed.
9. As far as Rehman Shah appellant is concerned, he was travelling in the vehicle, it is not clear from the prosecution evidence as to whether he was a passenger in the vehicle or not. The prosecution evidence is silent regarding his vicarious liability or intention about the concealment of narcotics substance in the above mentioned vehicle. Similarly he was not having the control of car from where such narcotics substance was concealed. There is nothing on record that he was bearing common intention with his co-accused qua the custody of the narcotics or offered any assistance in this respect.
10. Resultantly, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against this appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The case against him is doubtful. The prosecution evidence could not prove the alleged charge against him thus he is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge.
His conviction and sentence is set aside. He be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.