' IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---Through this appeal, appellant Salahuddin has assailed the judgment, dated 26-3-2007, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.N.S., Larkana in Special Case No,7 of 2006, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to suffer R.I. For life and to fine of Rs.500,000, in case of default in payment of fine the appellant was directed to suffer R.I. For three years more. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in favour of the appellant.
2. Precisely, the facts of the prosecution case, according to the F.I.R., are that Excise Inspector Sikandar Ali Khoso left his police station along with his subordinate staff Excise Dafedar Abdul Karim, Excise Constable Muhammad Hashim and Excise Constable Meer Jeeand vide Movement entry No,2, at 6-00 p.m., for Nakabandi at Jacobabad Quetta Road. The Excise Police started Nakabandi near Ahmed Mian Shah on Jacobabad Quetta Road. During Nakabandi spy informer informed him that a truck is coming from Balochistan having narcotics. A Truck No, TKF-1205 was stopped, only driver was sitting on driving seat, he was alighted from the truck and enquired about his name and parentage, who, disclosed his name as Salahuddin son of Barkat Ali, by caste Kakar Pathan. Personal search of Salahuldin was conducted and Rs.600 were recovered from the right side pocket of his shirt. After that the search of the truck was conducted. Registration Book and Route Permit were secured. The rear seat of the truck was searched and secret drawers were found, which contained bundles of charas. Police secured 215 bundles, each bundle weighed to be one kilogram. From each bundle 10 grams charas was taken for chemical examination and sealed as sample and the remaining charas was also sealed separately.
3. Such mashimama of arrest and recovery of narcotics was prepared at the spot, the truck, the case property and the appellant/ accused were then taken to Excise Police Station, Jacobabad, where complainant lodged the F.I.R. Against Salahuddin under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act being Crime No,5 of 2006 at Excise Police Station Jacobabad.
4. Charge was framed, to which the appellant denied and pleaded trial.
5. During trial prosecution examined Excise Inspector Sikandar Ali complainant as P. W-1 at Exh.6, he produced daily Movement Entry at Exh.6/A, mashimama of arrest and recovery at Exh.6/B, F.I.R. At Exh.6/C, Chemical Report at Exh.6/D and then EC Meer Jeeand was examined as P.W.2 at Exh.7.
6. Prosecution closed its side and then statement of accused/appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C.
Was recorded, in which appellant pleaded his innocence and in his defence the appellant examined himself 340(2), Cr.P.C. And produced his CNIC, so also one Naimatullah as D.W.2. After closing the defence side and after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties the impugned judgment was passed.
7. We have heard Mr. Abdul Baqi Jan Kakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ameer Ahmed. Narejo, learned State counsel and with their assistance we have scanned the entire evidence.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was involved falsely by the Excise Police due to enmity. He contended that the sample was dispatched for chemical examination on 9-8-2006 but the same was received in the office of Chemical Examiner at Rohri on 10-8-2006 and the delay of five days has not been plausibly explained by the prosecution, which creates doubt in the prosecution case. He further argued that the appellant was not in conscious possession of the narcotic substance and it cannot be said with certainty that the appellant was in knowledge about the secret drawers, from where the narcotic substance was recovered. He has relied upon the cases of Muhammad Akram. Khan v. The State, (1996 PCr.LJ 813), Zahoor Ahmad Awan v. The State (1997 SCM R 543), Hamza v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 360), Ghulam Saddique v. The State, (2005 YLR 605) and Abdul Sattar v. The State, (2009 YLR 2435).
9. He sum up his arguments that the prosecution has miserably, failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and the defence has succeeded to create doubt in the prosecution case and benefit of which is always to be extended in favour of the defence. He further argued that both the witnesses are Excise officials, the complainant acted as complainant and Investigating Officer, which is against the canons of law. He further contended that the appellant has examined one Naimatullah and the defence evidence is to be accepted in the circumstances of this case.
10. Mr. Ameer Ahmed Narejo, learned State counsel, strongly supported the impugned judgment, and contended that there is no enmity of the Exercise police officials with the appellant. The appellant is not previously known to the complainant or any of the Excise officials. He further contended that the evidence of both the is P.Ws. Is in consistence with each other and there is no material discrepancies available in their evidence. A huge quantity of narcotic substance was recovered from the truck which was driven by the appellant at the relevant time. He further contended that a huge quantity of narcotic substance without any reasonable cause or reason could not be foisted upon the appellant by the Excise police. He further contended that the appellant is a narcotic trafficker and he was fully aware about the secret drawers in the truck from where the narcotic substance was recovered by the excise police. He further argued that the trial Court has already taken lenient view, as the punishment could awarded of death sentence in such-like cases where a huge quantity of narcotic substance is recovered.
11. We with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties have gone through the evidence of both the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses. P.W. Sikandar Ali stated that on 5-8-2006 he left police station for nakabandi vide Entry No,2 at 6-00 p.m. Along with his subordinate staff E.D Abdul Karim, ECs Muhammad Hashim and Meer Jeeand. During nakabandi he received spy information that a truck bearing Registration No,TKF-1205 is coming from Balochistan side. After sometime that truck was stopped and appellant was found sitting on the driving seat of the said truck. He was alighted and his personal search was conducted. Cash Rs.600 was recovered from right side pocket of his shirt. The Registration Book and the Driving Lincence were recovered from the dashboard of the truck. From the rear seat of the truck secret drawers were found, which contained bundles of charas numbering 215. The bundles were opened, which contained charas.
From each bundle, 10 grams charas was separated and sealed as sample for chemical examination and other charas was sealed separately and he prepared the mashirnama of arrest and recovery and lodged the F.I.R. A length cross-examination was conducted by the defence Counsel, but the defence failed to achieve any material contradiction from this witness. He further stated that he sent the charas for chemical examination on 9-8-2006, which was received in the office of Chemical Examiner, Rohri on 10-8-2006 and the chemical report is in positive.
12. P.W. Meer Jeeand also stated the same facts, as stated by Excise Inspector Sikandar Ali. His cross-examination was conducted by the defence, but not a single material discrepancy was obtained from this witness.
13. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Only pleaded innocence and examined himself under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. On oath. He stated that he was alighted from the Wagon outside the Jacobabad Bus Stand on the plea that his N.I.C. Was not available with him. He has examined one Naimatullah as D.W.1. Who stated that the appellant was alighted from mini bus near Jacobabad.
14. We have minutely examined the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence in juxtaposition. The prosecution evidence appears to be consistent and trustworthy, as there is no enmity of the excise officials with the appellant and the appellant was not previously known to the excise police prior to the present incident. A huge quantity of narcotic substance viz., charas weighing 215 kilograms was recovered from the secret drawers of the truck driven by the appellant.
In our view, the appellant is a drug trafficker. He was fully in knowledge of the secret drawers. He has taken the stand that he was travelling in a Wagon, but his defence witness Naimatullah falsified his stand by saying that they were travelling in a mini bus. Moreover, the appellant has not taken this stand in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Nor during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. We have gone through the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, but with due respect those are on different circumstances and each criminal case is to be decided on its own merits, as held by the superior Court of this country time and again. In the instant case both the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and a lengthy cross- examination was conducted to both the prosecution witnesses but no material discrepancy was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. The sample was taken from each bundle and the report is in positive. Delay of five days in sending the sample for chemical examination in the circumstances is not fatal to the prosecution case. There, is no evidence available with the defence that the sample taken from each bundle had been tampered with at the Excise police station. This is a crime against society and the said crime of narcotic is increasing in our country day-by-day, which is ruining the lives of youngsters, hence such offenders are not entitled for any lenient view.
For the foregoing reasons, we see no merits in the instant appeal. Under the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.