Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.--A raiding party of Anti Narcotics Force Multan headed by Captain Noor-ud-Din, on spy information, apprehended Akbar Khan son of Ameer Khan, caste Afridi, resident of War Pagga, Police Station Chamakani, Tehsil and District Peshawar on 5-5-1999 at about 07:20 a.m. Near general bus stop Chichawatni; upon interrogation, it transpired that he had brought 35-kilograms of cannabis/charas, which he a short while ago handed over to Muhammad Khalid alias Alamdar Ali son of Allah Bukhsh, resident of Street No, 1 Chichawatni. It was in pursuance of this disclosure that at about 8:15 a.m. Muhammad Khalid was also arrested, who disclosed that he had concealed the contraband in the house of Muhammad Mansha Rizwan Advocate, respondent herein; at 9:00 a.m. The raiding party was at the house of the respondent, who according to Ex.PE led to the recovery of a blue colour sack lying in a garage; 35-packets of contraband each Weighing 1-kg were secured vide memo. Ex.PA and complaint Ex.PE was recorded at the spot at 12:15 p.m. By Rana Khadim Hussain, F.I.O. Anti Narcotic Force Multan. A car bearing Registration No, MNN-2979 (P-2) parked in the garage was taken into 'possession vide memo. Ex.PB.
Ex.PF is site-plan of place of recovery.
' Formal proceedings included separation and dispatch of samples from each packet weighing 10- grams each sent to the office of Chemical Examiner which according to report Ex.PG were of cannabis/ Charas.
' Upon conclusion of investigation, the respondent and his co-accused Akbar Khan and.
Muhammad Khalid were sent to face trial before a learned Special. Judge Anti Narcotics Multan; they were indicted on 10-03-2001, when they claimed trial.
' Prosecution in order to bring home charge against the accused produced as many as three witnesses while the Akbar accused without opting to be his own witness produced Muhammad Ashraf D-W-1 whereas the respondent produced Rana Tahir Aziz Advocate DW-2 and Waseem Ahmad DW-3. The respondent also produced documentary evidence in the form of certified copies of FIR No, 238/94 as Ex.DA power of attorney Ex.DB, power of attorney Ex.DC, power of attorney, Ex.DD, power of attorney Ex.DE, power of attorney Ex.DF along with copy of order dated 9-10-1998 Ex.DG, copy of power of attorney Ex.DH, application Ex.DI, affidavit Ex.DJ and copy of resolution dated 6-5- 1999 passed by Bar Association Chichawatni Ex.DK and a site-plan Mark-A.
' Confronted with prosecution evidence, Muhammad Khalid accused took following position: "I have been falsely involved in this case. In fact on 5.5.1999 at around 7-00 a.m. I had gone to the house of my Advocate Mansha Rizwan to inquire about my case. Mansha Rizwan Advocate met me and he asked me to sit in his office situated in his house. I had sat there a while, when ANF authorities conducted raid on the house of Mansha Rizwan. We were blind folded and required to sit in a vehicle. The ANF authorities pressed me time and again that you will be spared but they sent me to jail. When I reached in jail, I came to know that recovery of 35 kg charas has been planted on me. God is my witness that I am innocent and have been falsely involved in this case. I may be acquitted."
' Position taken by the respondent is as under:-- "My co-accused Muhammad Khalid is my old client. On the day of alleged occurrence a bail application was fixed filed by an accused in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Chichawatni. The bail application was filed by an accused against whom there was allegation of abduction of sister- in-law of Khalid accused I left my house along with other lawyers in my car for the Courts as usual.
The PW Rana Khadim Hussain approached me in the Courts and inquired about Muhammad Khalid co-accused as to his credentials. I informed that Muhammad Khalid co-accused was my client. Rana Khadim Hussain PW asked me to accompany him for interrogation, which was resisted by me, and other advocates present there namely Rana Khushnood, Mehr Abdul Razzaq Ch. Amanullah and Rana Tahir Aziz, who are my close neighbourers and almost daily travel with me in my car from my house to the Tehsil Courts. Because of resistance, the complainant falsely involved me in this case, prepared false documents of place of alleged recovery. He also prepared a wrong site-plan showing the garage having divided with a wall. As per position at the location, the garage wherefrom the complainant alleges to have recovered the narcotics is commonly used by me- and MehrAbdul Razzaq Advocate, who is occupant of the adjoining portion of the same property in which I reside. The garage is also in joint possession of me and Mehr Abdul Razzaq Advocate.
' Since it was a false case, I also filed a writ petition Bearing No, 4573/1999 seeking quashment of FIR. The same was disposed of by His Lordship the then Mr. Justice Dr. Muneer A. Mughal. I was allowed bail by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench after appreciating the plea taken by me. I also agitated my innocence before the Director General of ANF. I was promised saying that facts are known to him and that I am innocent with a further assurance that needful will be done and to my extent the case would be cancelled. Later on the local authorities of ANF rushed to submit the challan in this Hon'ble Court. My plea of defence was still in mid-stream when with mala fides I have been challaned. I am absolutely innocent. No recovery whatsoever has been effected from the jointly possessed garage.
2. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge convicted Akbar Khan and Muhammad Khalid under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substance's Act, 1997 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs, 10,00,000/- each or one year SI in default of payment thereof; they were also convicted under Section 15 of the Act ibid and sentenced to 10-years RI, both sentences to run concurrently with benefit of Section. 382-B, Cr.P.C., however, the respondent was extended benefit of the doubt and acquitted from the charge.
' The State has called into question the acquittal. Akbar Khan and Muhammad Khalid impugned their convictions; statedly they have served out their sentences.
3. Mr. M.A. Hayat Haraj, learned counsel for the Anti Narcotic Force has argued that impugned view whereby acquittal is granted is an impossible view inasmuch as taken from any angle and through any methodology of appraisal of evidence, the charge against the appellant is established beyond a shadow of doubt as factum of recovery of contraband from inside the premises owned and possessed by the respondent is proved to the hilt. It has been further argued that the respondent is identically placed with co-convict Akbar. Khan and Muhammad Khalid and no distinction can possibly be drawn to create a space to bless him with benefit of the doubt. According to the learned counsel, acquittal of the respondent has resulted into miscarriage of justice which calls for interference.
4. Contrarily, it is argued on-.Behalf of the respondent that once acquittal is granted, exceptionally strong grounds are required to reverse it into conviction and that learned Special Judge was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case to extend benefit of doubt to the respondent, who belongs to a respectable profession and was indicted on a trumped up charge.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6: No doubt, once acquittal is granted, exceptionally strong grounds are required to reverse freedom granted by a competent tribunal; acquittal is not ordinarily interfered with, where impugned view is found even obliquely possible from the facts and circumstances of the case.
However, every acquittal is neither sacrosanct nor immutable. This Court would not hesitate to intervene and recall freedom to avoid miscarriage of justice arid keep people's faith in the process of law and the judicature intact. In the present case, Muhammad Azam Khan, SI (PW-2) and Rana Khadim Hussain, F.I.O. (PW-3) furnished factual details leading to the recovery of the contraband which is quite a cache which cannot be possibly foisted upon someone, particularly having some station in life; the chronological sequence given in Ex.PE is straightforward, consistent and confidence inspiring; it is Akbar Khan, co-convict who is apprehended in the first place leading to the arrest of Muhammad Khalid ultimately taking the raiding party to the house of . The respondent; the raiding party itself is headed by a Captain of Pakistan Army, his non-examination by the prosecution does not adversely effect its case, as it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine each and every witness in support of the charge. Both PW-2 and PW-3 withstood the test of a grueling and embarrassingly lengthy cross-examination as a granite rock; they are responsible functionaries of the State, having no animus or grudge against the respondent and they have been believed by the learned Special Judge himself, who relied upon their testimonies while returning a guilty verdict qua Akbar Khan and Muhammad Khalid. Though it is no responsibility of an accused to prove his innocence nor position taken by him during the trial can be pressed into service to his detriment and it is for the prosecution alone to drive home the charge nonetheless the plea raised by an accused during the trial can be juxtaposed with the prosecution evidence and in so doing we have found testimony furnished by PW-2 and PW-3 far more convincing and confidence inspiring than the position taken by the respondent. Despite decay in our ethos and norms still the members of the Bar are held in respect and esteem; it is hard to conceive that a lawyer would be put to such a horrendous charge merely for representing an outlaw before the Court. This would certainly ignite a tremendous reaction and backlash which did not occur in this case where only few well-wishers made clumsy attempts through inconsequential documents to create a smoke screen. The attempt comprises of some power of attorneys purportedly filed by the respondent to demonstrate that he was present before some Magisterial Courts on the day of occurrence at the time of recovery or narcotic. This is rather antithetical to the position taken by the respondent; he was arrested from his residence on 5-5- 1999 at 9:00 a.m. And formal FIR was lodged at 3:30 p.m. And as such he had no occasion for his presence before any Court; no interim order showing his presence at the relevant time in any Court of law has been brought on the record and for the obvious reason that such manipulation was not possible; mere signatures on power of attorneys in itself do not lead us to draw any conclusion favourable to the respondent. Insofar as Bar resolution Ex.DK is concerned less said the better. The attempt is besides the mark.
7. The learned Special Judge inordinately belaboured to draw a distinction to create a space for extension of so-called benefit of doubt to the respondent; the entire reasoning given by him is incoherent and meaningless verbosity. In dispensation of criminal justice, the expression "doubt" is not 'a subjective. Feeling which could vitiate positive proof emanating from evidential foundations indicting a culprit on a charge; it could be neither illusory nor imaginary rather has to be reasonable in the sense that it is neither a surmise nor a guess or conjecture. As has been held in the case of Muhammad Asghar alias Nana another vs. The State (2010 SCMR 1707) which is reproduced advantageously: "it is not a doubt raised by any one simply for the sake of raising a doubt, it, is such a doubt as in serious affairs that concern anyone and that such a doubt would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act in matters of importance, it is not hesitation springing from feelings of pity or sympathy for the accused or any other person who might be effected by the decision."
'The respondent is squarely situated at par with those who were cast in prison for life; he is liable to same treatment; sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Office or station in life does not sanctify the beholder.
8. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for, the appellant that the impugned view of acquittal is an impossible view which in the facts and circumstances of the case warrants interference so that the steams of justice are kept pure and clean and justice is done in Such a manner that it is seen to have been done without distinction or classification; this is essential to maintain people's faith in the due process of law. Consequently, Crl. Appeal No, 609 of 2002 is allowed, impugned judgment dated 11-6-2002 to the extent of acquittal of the respondent is set aside. Muhammad Mansha Rizwan, respondent is convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of rupees one million, in default of payment thereof, he shall undergo R.I. For 02-years with benefit of Section 382- B, Cr.P.C. The District Police Officer Sahiwal is directed to take the respondent into custody and cause his production before the Special Judge Anti Narcotics, Multan so as to be lodged in jail along with warrant of commitment to serve out his sentence.