' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.-The present appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 7-7-2005 passed by the CNS Court, Thatta in Special Case No,250 of 2001 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellants under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. For 7 years and fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For 6 months with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 3-5-2001 the complainant Inspector Khalil Hussain Shah, Incharge CIA Centre, Thatha along with his subordinate staff on patrol duty. During patrolling he received information that Imran and Mirjat were running a Bhatti of Katcha Liquor in the jungle near village Kabul Mirjat. On the said information the police party reached at the said place at 6-30 p.m, but the culprits ran away and the police secured incriminating articles from there. After completing the formalities over there, while, they were returned to Police Station reached near village where the complainant received another information that appellants Mazar and Baradio were selling Charas in the street near their house situated in Kabul Mir Jat Village. On the said information the police party reached at the pointed place at 7-45 p.m. And saw the appellants present there who, seeing the policy party leaving a wooden box, ran away from there. The police reached there and found slabs of Charas lying in the wooden box. The Charas was weighed which came to be 7500 grams. The police drawn one slab of 1000 grams from the said property for chemical examination. Both the properties were separately sealed. The same were brought to the Police Station where the F.I.R, was lodged. The appellants obtained bail before arrest from the Court. The police, after usual investigation, challaned the appellants in the Court where they were tried and convicted as mentioned above under the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the advocate for the appellants, A.A.-G. For the State and perused the record of this case very carefully.
4. The learned advocate for the appellants has stated that the evidence of witnesses is contradictory to each other; that there is delay in sending the property to the Chemical Analyzer; that the identity of the appellants from a distance of one furlong is highly doubtful; that the P.Ws, did not state that they already knew the appellants. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful. The learned A-A.-G. Has stated that no doubt, there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws, but the P.Ws, have involved the appellants in the case and the recovery was made from the wooden box which has been found to be Charas as per Chemical Analyzer report, therefore, he has supported the impugned judgment.
5. We have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on the record and found that the prosecution examined complainant Inspector Khalid Shah and SIP Ghulam Farid, mashir of recovery. Both the witnesses gave more or less similar facts as mentioned in the earlier part of the A B judgment but on some material points their statements are contradictory to each other. The complainant disclosed that first they received the information about the presence of Bhatti of Katcha liquor near village Kabul Mirjat. They were then after completing the formalities, while returning to the Police Station received the information of present case. This statement of the complainant has not been supported or corroborated by P.W.3 Ghulam Farid as he deposed that first they received spy information about the first incident and while they were proceeding there they received the information about the second incident. Both the witnesses have stated that they saw two persons standing near a wooden box from a distance of one furlong. The time has been shown as 7-45 p.m., which was sunset time. Therefore, in such a situation and from a long distance of one furlong it could not have been possible by the witnesses to have identified the appellants.
Furthermore, they did not disclose in the evidence that they already knew the appellants before this incident, therefore, they identified him. But the information was that two persons by the names of Mazar and Baradio were selling Charas. It is pertinent to point out that the complainant disclosed that he had secured the wooden box but he has not been corroborated by the P.W.3 who disclosed that he did not remember whether wooden box was secured from the place of incident or was left there. However, the said wooden box was not produced before the Court, as such, the article from which the Charas was secured, was not available in the Court. This point was further clarified by P.W.2. Walidino Jatoi, Investigating Officer who disclosed that when he reached the Police Station the complainant handed him over two parcels of Charas as case E property. It is further pointed out that the property was sent to Chemical Analyzer on ,13-7-200.1 after more than two months of the recovery. No explanation has been furnished for such delay in sending the property to Chemical Analyzer. Because of the above discrepancies in the evidence the delay in sending the property has created further doubt in the prosecution case. The appellant took the defence in his 342, Cr.P.C, statement, which reads as under:- "I am Zamindar.-In the year, 1998 I had exchanged hot words with the then CIA Inspector Abdul Latif Prizada who at present is serving as DSP due to enmity with Abdul Latif I and my other family members have been involved falsely in several cases. In the present case I and co-accused who is my real brother have been involved in this case. My son Indar and 2 relatives Majeed and Fareed were shown as manufacturing Katcha wine both P.Ws, deposed against my son and relative in the Court of IInd C.J. And J.M., Thatta in which they had given contradictory statements. I produce such copies of deposition of P.W. Talib and P.W. Ghulam Fareed at E 11 and l2. The said case was acquitted. I produce acquittal judgment as Exh.
13. I am innocent."
6. The defence taken by the appellants has been supported and corroborated by the certified true copies of the statements of the witnesses examined in the said case and judgment of the trial Court delivered in crime No,51 of 2001.
7. After consideration the material available on the record we are. Of the considered view that the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt which was, accordingly, given to them at the time of passing short order.
8. Above are the reasons of our short order, dated 13-12-2005, by which we had allowed the appeal.