AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 21.04.2012, passed by learned Special Judge CNS, Shikarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to suffer R.I for life and to pay fine of Rs, One million; in case of default in payment of fine appellant was ordered to suffer SI for six months more. However, he was extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment through this appeal.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that on 17.01.2011 at 1100 hours near Sui Gas point 'situated on main road leading from Shikarpur to Jacobabad, appellant Abdul Karim Brohi was found trafficking 80 kilograms of charas in secret cavity of the truck bearing registration No,TKQ-179, by an Excise police party headed by Excise Inspector Qamaruddin Siyal in presence of Mashirs E.J Imdad Ali Mirani and E.D Amanullah Khan.
3. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined two witnesses, i,e, complainant Excise Inspector Qamaruddin Siyal and Excise Jamadar Imdad Ali Mirani. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations by pleading his innocence. He did not examine himself under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. To prove his defence; however he examined D.W Muhammad Alim in his defence. After conclusion of the trial the 'appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
4. To establish its case the prosecution examined P.W-1, complainant Excise Inspector Qamaruddin Siyal at Ex.4, he produced mashirnama of arrest and recovery, FIR, chemical report and copy of roznamcha entry. Excise Jamadar Imdad Ali Mirani was examined as P.W-2, at Ex.10.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned .A.P.G. And have gone through the entire evidence and the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, there are material contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses which create doubt . In their truthfulness and that the appellant was falsely implicated by the excise police on failure of appellant to fulfill their illegal demand. Learned counsel next contended that; the recovery was effected from appellant in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.; that the appellant had taken defence in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., is highly probable and reliable but the learned trial Court had erred in law to discard the defence plea without proper application of mind. Learned counsel further submitted that, the learned trial Court has drawn wrong conclusion against the appellant by misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record. Per learned counsel, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish charge against the appellant and the appellant has succeeded to create doubt in the prosecution case, and if any doubt created; the benefit of the same is to be extended in favor of appellant. Learned counsel placed his reliance on 2009 YLR 507 and 1994 M LD 1493.
7. On the other hand learned A.P.G. Submitted that the impugned judgment is well in law and well reasoned; he supported the impugned judgment.
8. We, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties have gone through the evidence adduced at the trial, though both the witnesses were cross-examined at length, but no material discrepancy is pointed out by the learned defence counsel. PW-1 Excise Inspector Qamaruddin Siyal fully supported the version of FIR and recovery of charas from the truck which was being driven by the appellant. PW-2 Excise Jamadar Imdad All Mirani corroborated the evidence of the PW-1; though lengthy cross-examination was conducted at the trial, but no material contradiction is pointed out in the statements of both witnesses, so as to create a dent in the prosecution case.
No enmity, or grudge has been alleged or proved against the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant despite the lengthy cross-examination. Question of foisting the alleged charas is out of consideration, because a huge quantity of charas having market value in lacs of rupees is recovered from the appellant.
9. The learned trial Court had rejected the defence version of the appellant, to the effect that he had come to Shikarpur town for his medical treatment, because he failed to produce any proof in this regard, at the trial. The learned trial Judge has also discarded evidence of defence witness examined by the appellant at trial, after considering each and every piece' of evidence before recording conviction against the appellant. The learned trial Court rejected the defence plea of the appellant with cogent reasons and also observed that violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Has no consequences in view of exclusion of the said provision of Criminal Procedure Code by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The learned trial Court also observed that the prosecution witnesses belonged to Excise Police, by itself cannot be considered a valid reason to discard their evidence, especially when no mala fides or ulterior motives are proved against them.
It is further observed that, learned trial Court has rightly held the appellant responsible for recovery of entire narcotic contraband of eighty kilograms, because the samples were taken out from each packet and report whereof has come in positive. The counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread by the trial .Court or decided the case against appellant in violation of any provision of law or any principle laid down by superior Courts.
10. It is further observed that acts like this, which not only bring disgrace to the country's name but also are deteriorative to the society and atrophic to the youth who develop and carve the future of the country and mould the destiny of the nation. Such illegal and indecent activities are converting our younger generation into drug addicts, giving birth to a never ending cycle of enormities which not only cripples a society but also ruins the destiny of so many families in just a blink of an eye. It is now settled proposition of law that in the case of transportation or possession of narcotics, technicalities of procedural nature or otherwise should be overlooked in the larger interest of the country, if the case stands otherwise proved the approach of the Court should be dynamic and pragmatic, in approaching true facts of the case and drawing .Correct and rational inferences and conclusions while deciding such type of the cases.
11. For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded to establish the guilt of the appellant by producing trustworthy evidence, coupled with positive report of chemical examiner. The witnesses have deposed in line to support prosecution case and have passed test of lengthy cross-examination but the defence has failed to make any dent in the prosecution case or any material contradiction fatal to the prosecution case. The prosecution version and defence version are put in juxtaposition then prosecution version appears to be genuine and based on common sense. Therefore, we see no merits in the appeal and dismissed the same vide our short Order dated 27.08.2014, and these are the reasons for the same.