' GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J.---This appeal under section 48 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is directed against the judgment dated 26th June, 2012 passed by learned Special Judge, C.N.S. Court, Quetta, in C.N.S. Case No,49 of 2012, whereby he has convicted the appellant under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer R.I. For a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs,20,000 or in default thereof to suffer further S.I for two months.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in favour of appellant.
2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 26th February, 2012, F.I.R. No,24 of 2012, under section 9-C of C.N.S. Act, 1997 was registered with Police Station, Kuchlak, Quetta on the Murasila of complainant Asif Ghafoor IP/SHO, stating therein that on the said date, he along with his subordinate staff namely Muhammad Maqbool, SI/ASHO, Ajab Khan, ASI and others were on area patrolling. During the course of patrolling they received spy information that a Mini Wagon bearing Registration No,JE-8180-Karachi is coming from Chaman towards Quetta in which two lady passengers are on board having Charas in their luggage. On receipt of this credible information the complainant laid a Naka at Jalovgeer, Quetta-Chaman Road and started checking of vehicles coming from Chaman side. At about 3-10 p.m. a Wagon bearing Registration No,JE-8180-Karachi reached there, which was stopped and started search of passengers luggage, two ladies having bags in their laps were alighted from the Wagon. On checking Charas was recovered from the bags. On query they disclosed their names as Farheen widow of Gulraz (appellant) and Azra Parween wife of Muhammad Raise. On checking the bag blue red in colour appellant five plastic begs of baked Charas in rod shaped and two plastic bags having raw Charas were recovered. On weighing plastic envelope rod shaped found five (5) kilogram each and from two packets raw Charas found two (2) kilogram; total seven (7) kilogram was taken into possession through recovery memo; in presence of witnesses. Out of which twenty (20) grams from backed Charas and ten (10) grams from raw Charas was separated for chemical analyzer, and sealed in parcel No,1 while the remaining Substance was sealed in Parcel No,2. On the stated allegations, present F.I.R. Was registered and the appellant was arrested.
3. After usual investigation, challan of the ease against the appellant was sent in the Court of Special Judge, C.N.S. Quetta, and charge was framed on 21st March, 2012, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. After framing the formal charge, prosecution examined P.W.1 Asif Ghafoor, S.H.O. Complainant, who produced recovery memo; as Exh. P/1-A and Murasla as Exh . P/1-B . P. W.2 Ajab Khan, ASI, recovery witness identified his signatures on recovery memo; Exh.P/1-A. He also produced vehicle as Art; P/1, Parcel No,2 as Art; P/2. He produced five packets of backed Charas in rod shaped as Art; P/3, two packets of raw Charas as Art: P/4, beg blue in colour as Art; P/5 and sample seal as Art; P/6. P.W.3 Muhammad Ashraf, S.I/Investigating Officer, who produced. F.I.R. As Exh.P/3-A, incomplete challan as Exh.P/3-B, Chemical Expert Report as Exh. P/3-C and complete challan as Exh.P/3-D.
Thereafter, the prosecution closed its side. The statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C.
Was recorded wherein she denied to have committed the offence and deposed that she went to Chaman for shopping. She is innocent and nothing was recovered from her possession. She neither examined herself on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produced any witness in her defence.
5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, hence this appeal.
6. We have heard Mr. Jamil Ramzan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Atiq Ahmed Khan, learned Additional Prosecutor-General.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the police and managed official witnesses, who deposed falsely against the appellant, therefore, their testimony could not be considered in convicting her. He further contended that because of lack of disinterested witnesses no reliance can be placed on the police witnesses and the impugned judgment is the result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence available on record, therefore the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and on acceptance of her appeal she may be acquitted of the charge.
8. On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor-General supported the impugned judgment and submitted that no enmity or mala fide has been pleaded against the police officials, as such, their testimony is confidence-inspiring and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence available on record.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case is belied by the statement of Asif Ghafoor, S.H.O. P.W.1 and Ajab Khan, ASI, P.W.2, who have fully supported each other on material particulars of the prosecution case. The appellant was arrested on the spot along the contraband and the report of the F.S.L. Also supports the case of prosecution. In cross-examination no mala fide or particulars of enmity neither have been alleged nor brought on record so as to extend its benefit to the appellant P.W.3 Muhammad Ashraf, S.I. Investigating Officer, who sent the sample of Charas to Chemical Examiner, who vide his Report Exh.P/3-C, opined it in positive. Neither such huge quantity of contraband can be planted by the prosecution against the appellant, nor material contradiction or discrepancy has been brought out on the record to shatter the credibility of the prosecution evidence. The prosecution witnesses have fully supported and corroborated its case and the appellant has failed to prove her defence plea by producing evidence, as such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and we do not find any justification to interfere in the well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court.
11. For what has been discussed above, we find no merit or substance in this appeal and dismiss it.