' ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18-10-2010 autohred by Mr. Zia ud Din Khattak, the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, Peshawar whereby appellant Saiful Abbas was convicted under section 9(c), CNSA and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs,one lac, or in default to undergo one year S.I., also extending him benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on prior information qua smuggling of narcotics through Motor Car bearing Registration No,FSF 2693 Honda City, white colour from tribal area to Punjab, Garanullah Khan, S.H.O. Of Police Station Badaber, along with Mir Qalam Khan S.I. And other police Contingents, laid nakabandi near Mashugagar Check post when in the meantime, at 1300 hours, the said vehicle was seen coming from Speen Qamar Bara side which was stopped. The vehicle was only manned by a driver who disclosed his name as Saiful Abbas. Search of the vehicle led to the recovery of 167 packets of Chars which were concealed in the secret cavities specifically prepared for the said purpose beneath its rear seats. Out of 167 packets, 77 packets were having 1000 grams each while remaining 90 packets were of 1200 grams each, thus total chars weighing 185 kgs was recovered. Accordingly, a case under section 9 CNSA was registered agaii :t him, vide F.I.R. No,482, dated 27-7-2009, in the Police Station Badaber, Peshawar. After his arrest and completion of investigation, he was forwarded to the learned Judge Special Court/Sessions Judge, Peshawar for trial. The learned Judge on the conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above in paragraph-1 of the judgment. Hence this appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-contended that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case as he was hauled up by the local police on suspicion to be Talib because of his long beard and subsequently, he was involved in the case in hand; that he has nothing to do with the vehicle wherefrom the alleged incriminating substance was recovered; that he was made scapegoat because the persons from whose custody, the contrabands were recovered were let off by the local police and that the delay in sending the parcels to the FSL for analysis also intakes the recovery doubtful. The learned counsel by referring to the statement of the accused recorded under sections 342, Cr.P.C. Tried to canvass at the bar that neither the appellant drove the vehicle nor carried any narcotics. On last leg of his arguments, he contended that there is absolutely no evidence on the record to show that the appellant was in conscious knowledge of the incriminating substance recovered from the secret cavities of the. Car, therefore, charge against him cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
4 As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the story concocted by the appellant appears to be improbable and unbelievable on the face of it; that the statements of P. Ws. Stating about the occurrence being consistent and confidence inspiring have to be relied upon when there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that they had any or animus to falsely implicate the appellant. All the witnesses, the learned counsel added, are unanimous in their narration of the material particulars of the occurrence. The learned counsel by summing up his arguments submitted that the story of substitution and making the appellant as a scapegoat being more of a cock and bull story cannot be given much credence.
5. We have gone through the evidence of the case carefully and have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. A perusal of the evidence would reveal that the appellant was driving the vehicle wherefrom the incriminating substance was recovered. Though the appellant denied in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. But this appears to be an afterthought. The prosecution to prove guilt of the appellant examined as many as five witnesses but it is the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 which resulted in the impugned findings of conviction, therefore, we would like to appraise their evidence for just decision of the matter in hand. P.W. Granullah, S.H.O. Police Station Badaber, headed the police party who recovered the huge quantity of narcotics from the vehicle driven by the appellant.
This witness when examined as P.W.2 stated that on spy information about trafficking of contrabands from tribal territory to Punjab through vehicle bearing Registration No,FSF-2695, he along with other police officials made nakabandi on the road near Mashugagar check post when the said vehicle on being stopped was searched, it led to the recovery of a huge quantity of chars, weighing 185 Kgs. He narrated the entire story in the same sequence as given in the F.I.R. The other material witness of the prosecution is P.W.3 Mir Qalam Khan, S.I. Of Police Station Badabez. He is marginal witness to the recovery Memo Exh.P.W.2/1 vide which the P.W.1 took into possession the huge cache of narcotics weighing 185 kgs. This witness also reiterated the same story as given by the P, W.1 and the F.I.R., without there being a slightest difference in the narration. Both the witnesses were subjected to a searching cross-examination but nothing could be brought on the record to show that the charge against the appellant was false or he was roped in falsely or made a scapegoat for someone who had been let off by the prosecution. The substitution in the circumstances of the case, appears to be too remote. The defence evidence too did little to dislodge the testimony of any of the P.Ws. The report of the Chemical Examiner also lends corroboration to the prosecution version. There is also nothing on the record to show that the quantity of substance recovered was exaggerated or that all the packets recovered from the vehicle were not proved to have been of a substance other than the narcotics. The discrepancies or contradictions, if any, in the statements of the P.Ws. Highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant are not of a nature as could negate the recovery resulting into dislodging the entire prosecution version. Absence of any motive on the part of the P.Ws. Would further negate the possibility of false implication. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he was not in knowledge of the concealment of narcotics in the secret cavities of the motor car in question as the vehicle in question was neither driven by him nor owned by him, is of no help to him because under section 29 of the CNSA, onus lies on the appellant to have led evidence in support of his innocence qua lack of knowledge that he was ignorant about the presence of any narcotics in the truck in question and to this effect his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Can well be quoted wherein he has refused to produce any defence evidence in support of his innocence. However, this contention on his part can be termed a futile attempt to dislodge the prosecution version. Moreso, it is matter of record that the appellant belongs to Chitral and there is nothing in the evidence as to for what was he doing in Peshawar, especially to tribal areas adjacent to/bordering Peshawar. Furthermore, under section 29 of the CNSA, it was incumbent upon the appellant who hail from Chitral to have discharged his statutory burden by leading cogent and confidence inspiring evidence to prove his innocence, but he badly failed to discharge this liability, because he being driver of the motor car in question is presumed to be in control of the said vehicle about which he had complete knowledge even presence of anything in it and thus question of ignorance qua presence of any contraband in the said vehicle, simply does not arise.
We are fortified in our view by the dictum laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the cases reported as PLD 2006 Supreme Court 61 and PLD 2010 Supreme Court 1052.
7. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we are constrained to hold that the charge against the appellant has been proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and that he has rightly been convicted by the trial court. The impugned findings being free from any infirmity are not open to any interference. The appeal being without any merit is thus dismissed.
8. While parting with the judgment, we may observe that nowadays the narcotics business is increasing day by day and as a result of its rapid growth, especially in the posh areas of the community, it is destroying our young generation as the drug paddlers are not even sparing the young girls and children to achieve their evil goals. So in these state of affairs, the Court cannot shut its eyes, therefore, to curb this menace, mere technicalities should not be given weight in convicting such elements.