Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, J.--Appellant Alunal was booked in case FIR No. 408 dated 16.5.2012 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station City, Chiniot for the recovery of 15 Kilograms Heroin. On culmination of trial vide judgment dated 13.7.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot he was convicted and sentenced as under: `U/S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to Imprisonment for Life, with fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for six-months. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr .P.C was extended to the appellant.'
2. FIR (Exh.P A/1) was registered on the complaint (ExkP A) of Farooq Haider , Excise Inspector Chiniot mentioning therein that on 16.5.2012 at 10.45 p.m. he alongwith Sheraz Hussain, Muhammad Latif and Iftikhar Ahmed, Excise Constables including Naib Ali, Inspector Investigation Cell City Chiniot, Muham mad Ramzan 561/HC, Tanveer Abbas 969/C, Naeem Abbas 772/C, Jabir Ali 1093/C, Imtiaz Hussain 1005/C of Police Station City, Chiniot was present at Jinazgah Morr, Jhang Road where his source passed on information that a notorious narcotics dealer Akmal S/o Iqbal presently living at Chah Qazi Wala near Darba Pir Chosni, Chiniot was leaving his house for delivery of narcotics to his customers and if raid is conducted he can been arrested red handed. On this information complainant Farooq Haider alongwith his team reached at Chah Qazi Wala near the house of the accused Akmal.
He was holding a bag of black colour on his right shoulder who was apprehended. On checking bag complainant found Heroin powder packed in a plastic bag alongwith some empty shopper bags. On weighing it came to 15 K.G.
Out of which three sample parcels of 20 grams powder each were prepared and sealed at the spot with stamp of FH for sending those parcels to the offices of Chemical Analyst at Lahore, Multan and Rawalpindi. During interrogation accused told the police that he alongwith one Iqbal alias Bala resident of Mauza 128/JB, Thathia was supplying narcotics to their specific customers.
3. At trial prosecution, in order to prove its case produced seven witnesses. It is worth mentioning that complainant Farooq Haider , Excise Inspector did not appear before the Court as he left the country and gone abroad during trial of this case. Learned ADPP by giving up PW Shiraz Hussain, Excise Constable as being unnecessary and after tendering in evidence reports of Chemica l Analyst of Multan (ExkPD), Rawalpindi (Exh.PE) and Lahore (Exh.PF) closed the prosecution evidence on 29.6.2015. Thereafter statement of accused Akmal was recorded on 1.7.2015.
In answer to a specific question 'Why this case against him and why the PWs deposed against him' he denied the charge and stated that he was implicated falsely due to mala fide of complainant Farooq Haider as well as local police. Further alleged that complainant alongwith SHOs of District Chiniot was used to involve innocent persons by planting fake recovery of contraband narcotics just to grab money . Appellant also relied on documentary evidence i.e. Exh.DA to Exh.DD and Mark-A to Mark-F . Appellant did not record his statement under Section 340(2), Cr .P.C. in disproof of the allegations leveled against him.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant was falsely implicated as nothing had been recovered from his possession; that complainant never appeared before the Court to prove recovery of 15 Kilograms Heroin from the appellant and this fact alone is sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case; that forensic reports with regard to sample parcels sent to the offices of Chemical Analyst at Multan and Rawalpindi were dis-believed by the trial Court; that there was a previous enmity of the appellant with complainant Farooq Haider with regard to marriage of appellant with his cousin Mst. Naheed Akhtar whereas complainant wanted to get her married with his younger brother Humayun, so he in order take revenge from the appellant implicated him in the instant case falsely; that PFSA report (ExkPF) does not contain necessary protocols in the light of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases titled as The State through Regional Director ANF Vs Imam Bakhsh and others' reported as 2018 SCMR 2039 and Whair-ul-Bashar Vs The State' reported as 2019 SCMR 930, hence, conviction cannot be maintained against the appellant; that during trial appellant submitted application on two occasions for sending the whole bulk of recovered substance to Forensic Lab but learned trial Court turned down the request of the appellant without any lawful justification; that fake recovery of 15 K.Gs Heroin was effected in violation of Section 103, Cr.P.C. as no private person was associated with the recovery proceedings; that recovery witnesses were discrepant qua salient features of the case and that learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true perspective.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. It has been argued that appellant was caught red handed with possession of huge quantity contraband Heroin at the spot for which he could not furnish any plausible explanation; that recovery witnesses were consistent qua date, time, place and seizure of contra band Heroin from the appellant; that discrepancies pointed out in the statements of recovery witnesses were minor in nature which in no way create doubt about prosecution version; that positive forensic report of PFSA, Lahore (Exh.PF) further fortified that recovered substance was Heroin and that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant after due appreciation of evidence. Prays that this criminal appeal may be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. It is the case of Prosecution that appellant was caught red handed at the spot while in Possession of 15 K.G Heroin out of which three separate each weighing 20 grams were prepared for sending it to the offices of Chemical Analyst at Rawalpindi (Exh.PE), Multan (ExhPD) and Lahore (Exh.PF). Since complainant of this case Farooq Haider , Excise Inspector after registration of FIR left the country and gone abroad therefore, in order to prove the contents of complaint (ExhP A) Sheraz Hussain, Excise Constable appeared before the trial Court as PW-7 as secondary evidence who fully supported the contents of First Information Report. As per record Muhammad Ramzan 5611/HC and Naib Ali, Inspector were also recovery witnesses of contraband Heroin. Naib Ali, Inspector was also Investigating Officer of this case. They appeared before the Court as PW-3 and PW-6 respectively . Both these PWs were consistent in their version regarding place wherefrom the appellant was arrested, time of arrest and recovery of 15 Kilograms Heroin from his exclusive possession. The witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but the defence could not extract anything in its favour . No element of malice or previous enmity could be brought on record by the defence to the extent of these recovery witnesses (PW-3 & PW-6) qua false implication of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant laid much emphasis that there was previous enmity between complainant Farooq Haider and the appellant over marriage of Mst. Naheed Akhtar , (first cousin of the complainant ) whereas Farooq Haider wanted to marry her with his younger brother Humayun so in order to get rid from the appellant he involved the appellant in the instant case falsely . This argument may have some weight but keeping in view the nature and quantity of recovered contraband narcotic and its worth in the international market, it is hard to believe that only for the abov e said reason complainant involved the appellant in this case. We have gone through the statements of PW-3 and PW-6. Same question was put to these recovery witnesses. They did not deny the fact of enmity of complainant Farooq Haider with appellant but to the extent of recovery of narcotics both these witnesses with one voice categoric ally stated before the Court that it was the present appellant from whom 16 Kilograms Heroin was recovered at the spot in their presence.
During arguments learned counsel for the appellant also raised objection that learn ed trial Court did not accept the application of the appellant for sending the whole quantity of Heroin powder to the PFSA for forensic purpose. In reply to this objection it is held that provision of Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 requires that sample of narcotic drugs would be tested by Government Analyst. The statute itself used the word 'sample' it was obvious that sample was always part of total narcotics and it would not require that whole quantity of the contraband should be tested.
8. As per record complainant Farooq Haider prepared three separate sample parcels each weighing 20 grams Heroin powder for analysis. Subsequently those parcels were sent to the offices of Chemical Analysts of Multan, Rawalpindi and Lahore. So far as forensic reports (Exh. & Exh.PE) of Chemical Analysts of Multan and Rawalpindi are concerned it has come in the evidence of PW-4 Muhammad Nawaz 514/C that both the offices (Rawalpindi & Multan) returned the parcels as the seals of both the parcels were broken. He was carrier of both the parcels. PW-4 further stated after return of parcels he kept those samples with him for a long time under instructions of the complainant. So, safe custody of said two parcels becomes doubtful that's why learned trial Court excluded those reports from consideration rather disbelieved its authenticity . However , sample parcel sent to the office of PFSA, Lahore (Exh.PF) indicates that one sealed pack said to contain approximately 20 grams suspected Heroin received on 25.5.2012 which after analysis concluded that it was confirmed Heroin. To prove this report prosecution got examined Nizarat Ali 805/C as PW-2. He stated that on 24.5.2012 Moharrar handed over him a sealed parcel said to contain Heroin for its transmission to the office of PFSA, Lahore which he deposited intact in the said Lab.
Similarly , Moharrir Abdul Lateef, 511/HC while appearing before the Court as PW-5 stated that on 24.5.2012 he handed over one sealed parcel of Heroin to Nazarat Ali 805/C for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner , Lahore intact. Therefore, positive forensic report (Exh.PF) further supported prosecution version.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently pointed out that forensic report (Exh. PF) does not fulfill the requisite protocols as enunciated by the Apex Court in cases The State through Regional Director ANF Vs Imam Bakhsh and others' reported as 2018 SCMR 2039 and Whair-ul-Bashar Vs The State' reported as 2019 SCMR 930. It is true that this Court while relying upon the above referred judgments earlier acquitted many convicts while accepting their appeals but to convert the above argument suffice it to say that in the latest judgment of a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Jail Petition No. 348 of 2019 titled Ibrar Ullah Vs The State while refusing leave to appeal vide order dated 27.1 10.2020 observed regarding an identical report of PFSA, Lahore as under: `Criticism on forensic report Ex.PE carries no weight as it contains relevant details of the procedure followed by the analyst to confirm the narcotic character of the contraband;'
This Court is bound to follow latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the above referred latest judgment of the Apex Court of the country does not support the case of the appellant on the issue of nun- mentioning of protocols in PFSA report. In this backdrop argument of learned counsel for the appellant that PFSA, Lahore report (Exh.PF) lacks requisite protocols is of no avail and the same is turned down. After anlayzing the entire evidence we are of the considered view that the judgment of trial Court was in consonance with the evidence produced by the prosecution. Learned trial Court has made fair evaluation of evidence in accordance with settled principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.
9. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merits in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.