Rooh-ul-Amin Khan, J.--Through instant appeal, appellant-convict has challenged the judgment of the learned Judge Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge-I, Charsadda dated 17.10.2010, in case FIR No, 262,. dated 28.02.2012, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, whereby he was convicted under Section 9(c) of the CNS, Act, 1997 and sentenced to 07 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs, 50,000/- or in default whereof to undergo 06 months S.I. Benefit of Section 382-C, Cr.P.C. has been extended to the appellant.
2. On 28.02.2012, Motorcar bearing Registration. No, 8341, driven by the appellant-convict, coming from Peshawar side, was intercepted by Khursheed Khan Sub-Inspector (PW. 1), at Police Post Sardaryab, who at the relevant time was on duty alongwith other police personnel. During search of the car, 6 packets containing Charas, each weighing 1200 grams, total weighing 7200 grams, was recovered from its secret cavities. From each packet, 05 grams samples were separated and sealed in Parcels No, 1 to 6, for chemical analysis by the FSL. The remaining quantity of charas was sealed in separate parcel. Appellant was formally arrested and the recovered contraband and motorcar were taken into possession through recovery memo. Murasila was drafted and sent to the Police Station for registration of the case.
3. On completion of investigation, challan against the appellant accused was submitted before the trial court, where he was formally charged, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined five witnesses. After close of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and professed his innocence. He, however, neither wished to be examined on oath nor opted to produce evidence in defence. The learned trial Court, on conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-convict argued that impugned judgment of the trial Court is the result of misreading and non-reading of material evidence available on the record and that the appellant was convicted on flimsy, doubtful evidence of highly interested police witnesses.
Learned counsel stressed that recovery of the alleged contraband is highly doubtful because according to murasila 6 packets charas was recovered from the secret cavities of the motorcar, but during prosecution evidence, when the case property was examined, the same was found in 7 packets, which totally negates the earlier version of the complainant/Seizing Officer. Learned counsel further argued that prosecution has failed to prove the conscious knowledge of the appellant qua the contraband which was sine qua non, as, in such like cases, mere recovery from secret cavities of the vehicle, does not automatically connect the accused unless the prosecution prima facie succeeds in proving conscious knowledge of the accused; that there is delay in sending the samples to the FSL and the FSL report does not bear any emboss mark which seems a dubious document, thus, cannot be relied upon; that the prosecution case is pregnant of doubts, benefit of which should be extended to the appellant not as a matter of grace or concession, but as a matter or right.
5. Learned State counsel argued that narcotics were being transported/smuggled by the appellant in his motorcar, which was intercepted by the police and recovery was effected from its secret cavities; that the car being driven by the appellant and being in his sole control proves his conscious knowledge regarding concealment of the contraband. He argued that prosecution has proved the recovery through cogent, coherent and trustworthy confidence inspiring evidence and mere fact that PWs are police officials would not discard their testimony unless and until any enmity or ill will is proved on their part by the defence. The police witnesses are as good witnesses as others and their testimony can be relied upon if it rings true; that the recovery is further supplemented by positive report of the FSL, thus, appellant has rightly been convicted.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record with their valuable assistance.
7. Khursheed Khan Sub-Inspector, who is the Seizing Officer, was examined as PW.1 and Falak Niaz No, 437, who is marginal witness to the recovery memo was examined as (PW.2). Both these witnesses have furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. Khursheed Khan S.I. (PW. 1)" has reiterated the same version set forth by him in his murasila report. He has given the details of all events i,e, arrival of the accused in his motorcar, their interception and recovery of contraband narcotics from the secret cavities of the car. The version of the Seizing Officer has been fully corroborated by the Falak Niaz (PW.2) who had witnessed the recovery proceedings. Both the PWs have established their presence on the spot and recovery of narcotics from the secret cavities of the car of appellant. Both the PWs have been subjected to lengthy and searching cross- examination, but nothing beneficial could be extracted from them by the defence. No inconsistency could be found in their evidence and despite lengthy cross-examination no material contradiction could be pointed out by the defence. Samples from the recovered narcotics were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and report received therefrom is in positive. Nothing has been brought on record to prove that the recovered contraband was planted against the accused, as, such a huge quantity worth lacs rupees cannot be planted by the police of its own, in absence of any enmity or ulterior motive against the accused. There is not an iota of evidence to prove that the PWs had any previous enmity or grudge with the accused to falsely implicate him in the case. Even the entire evidence depicts that no suggestion has been put by the defence to the PWs. Moreover, Section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act being special law on the subject overrides Section 103, Cr.P.C. In such like cases the police witnesses are always good witnesses as nowadays keeping in view the norms of the society no body dares to become witness against the criminals to earn enmity for himself and for his family members. The contention of the learned counsel that the statements of the PWs are suffering from contradictions is not tenable. There is no major contradiction in the statements of the PWs who are found consistent and their testimony could not be shattered through lengthy cross-examination. The minor discrepancies in their statements would by no stretch of imagination imply that the recovery effected is- false and concocted.
8. As regard the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution has not proved the conscious knowledge of the accused, from the evidence it is established that accused at the relevant time was driving the motorcar in question and was incharge of the same which was under his control and possession. Whatever articles were lying in the vehicle were under his control.
Huge quantity of narcotic has been recovered from the secret cavities of his car for which no other person could be held responsible, except the appellant who was incharge of the vehicle which he was driving.
9. The version of the prosecution is further supplemented by positive report of the- FSL Exh.PZ, regarding the samples. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the murasila report, recovery of 6 packets has been shown whereas when the recovered contrabands were produced before the Court for examination the same were found in seven packets, is of no help to the prosecution because the parcels were de-sealed in the Court but the defence has not questioned the weight/quantity of the contraband at that moment. In case, the defence questioned the weight/quantity of the contraband, and if the trial Court on weighing the same, if found otherwise, contrary to the one given by the- Seizing Officer in his, report and during Court statements by the PWs, then the position would have been different, which might, be helpful for the defence. Mere excess of parcel would not discard the consistent and trustworthy account of the PWs furnished in the case.
10. For what has been discussed above, the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence on the record and has arrived at just, proper and right conclusion by convicting the appellant-accused. There is no misreading or non-reading of evidence or any infirmity in the impugned judgment which may warrant interference of this Court in its appellate jurisdiction.
Consequently, this appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.