' MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.--- This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11-3-2008, passed by Special Court-I (Control of Narcotic Substances), Karachi, in Special Case No,365 of 2004 in F.I.R. No,240 of 2004 registered under sections 6/9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ("Act, 1997"). The trial Court inflicted life conviction and a fine of Rs,5,00,000 upon each accused.
2. Learned counsel after taking the Court through the contents of. The F.I.R. Judgment as well as statements of the witnesses, has argued that, the case has been foisted upon the appellants as the truck, from which the narcotic substance has been recovered, did not belong to them nor any proof in this respect has been brought nor their link to the truck or the narcotic has been established. He further submits that the presence of the appellants near the truck even has not been substantiated by proper evidence. He has further argued that even otherwise the narcotic substance, which has been recovered in the shape of 40 slabs, was substantial quantity but has not been sent for sample and that the quantity of the rods has not been given and that the witnesses are police officials while no independent Mushir has been inquired, hence in all these circumstances punishment is contrary to record of the case. He has cited the case of Amanat Ali v.
State 2008 SCMR 991 on the point that the knowledge of the accused is necessary while there is no linkage pointed out between the appellants/accused and the truck from which the narcotic was recovered. He has further cited the case of Gul Dast Khan v. State 2009 SCMR 431 on the point that mere presence of the accused persons near the vehicle cannot be taken as conclusive proof and in such a situation benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellants/accused. He has further relied upon the case of Mamraiz Khan v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1995 SC 512 on the ground that none of the accused was testified as driver or the cleaner. He has prayed that the judgment of the trial Court be set aside and the appellants/accused be acquitted.
3. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. For the State stated that the witnesses have properly substantiated the case and there is no corroboration, inter se, while there is no enmity between the police and the appellants/accused and that the police witnesses are as good as an independent witness, keeping in view the case of Zafar v. State 2008 SCMR 1254, he submits that section 103 of the P.P.C. Is not part of Act, 1997 keeping in view its section 25 and it is not necessary that entire quantity of the Charas be sent for chemical examination in the light of case of Muhammad Khan v.
State 2008 SCMR 1616. He has prayed for the disposal of the appeal by stating that since more than 7 kilograms of Charas was recovered, therefore, punishment would be life in prison and fine.
4. Having heard the learned counsel, we have carefully perused the entire evidence and gone through the evidence. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration several authorities, cited by either of the parties including Muhammad Aslam v. State PLD 1968 Lah. 964, Waris Hussain Shah v. Abid Hussain Shah 2001 PCr.LJ 268, Doshail Hameed v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1993 FSC 45, Dilbar Masih v. State 2006 SCMR 1801, Muhammad Ilyas v. Khadim Hussain 2006 SCMR 1761, Muhammad Azam v. State PLD 1996 SC 67 etc. The trial Court had come to the conclusion that there is some lacuna in the evidence of Investigating Officer/S.I.P. Muhammad Abdullah but it cannot be a material to reflect doubt on the case of prosecution.
5. We have ourselves gone through the statement of Investigating Officer/S.I.P. Muhammad Abdullah- and have observed that said witness has also supported the prosecution case while other witnesses deposed on factual position, which has not been shaken in the cross-examination, hence observation of the trial Court in respect to witness Muhammad Abdullah is not correct. There is no enmity brought on record. Recovery of the Charas and its positive test is on record. The Charas has been recovered from the vehicle near which the appellants/accused persons were arrested and the plea that the link of the appellants/accused with the truck in the capacity as owner or the driver has not established is not a legal requirement, as the case is to be decided on the basis of facts which have come on record, which has been done through implicating evidence.
In such a situation we do not find any substance in this appeal, same is dismissed.