KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J.---- Through this Criminal Appeal, appellant Asadullah son of Muhammad Moosa Brohi has called in question the judgment dated 24.11.2018 passed by the learned Sessions / Special Judge (CNS), Hyderabad, in Special Case No.50 of 2013 (Re: The State v. Asadullah) arising out of Crime No.186 of 2013, registered at P.S Hatri, Hyderabad , for offence under Section 9(c)of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand), in case of non-payment of fine, to suffer S.I for six months more with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr . P . C
2. Concisely , the facts as portrayed in the P.T.R. are that on 16-11-2013 SIP Ghulam Raza Mari of Anti-V iolent Crime Cell (AVCC), Hyderabad along with his subordinate Staff namely SIP Muhammad Altaf, ASI Ghulam Nabi, HCs Mumtaz Ali and Muhammad Sear, PCs Ali Ghulam, Toseef and Imran left AVCC office in official vehicle vide Roznamcha Entry No.4 for patrolling purpose. During patrolling, when they reached at Hala Check-Post, they received spy information that a person is coming to Malak Petrol Pump in Rickshaw for selling heroin and chars.
On such information, they started snap checking and at about 12:00 p.m. they stopped the Rickshaw in which present appellant was found available, from whose possession the police party recovered two shoppers. From one shopper , they found 02 patties of chars weighing 01 KG and from another shoppe r one packet of heroin weighing 01 KG was secured. They police party upon checking of Rickshaw also found 14 patties of chars weighing 07 K.Gs and 14 packets of heroin powder weighing 14 KGs from rear seat of the Ricksh aw. The samples of chars and heroin were sealed separately and the remaining case property was sealed separately on the spot and such mashirnama of arrest and recovery was made in presence of mashirs. Thereafter , the accused and case property along with Rickshaw was brought at P .S Hatri, where FIR was lodged against the appellant on behalf of the State.
3. After conducting usual investigation, challan against the accused was submitted before the competent Court.
After compliance of Section 265-C, Cr.P.C., formal charge was framed against the accused, in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge against the appellant, examined on all 04 (four) witnesses, namely SIP Ghulam Raza, Muhammad Altaf, ASI Ghulam Nabi and SIP Dhani Bux, who produced numerous documents and then prosecution side was closed.
5. Statement of the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied all the allegations made against him by the prosecution and claimed his innocence. The accused did not examine himself on oath in term of Section 340(2), Cr .P.C, nor examined any witness in his defence.
6. Learned trial Court after hearing the respective parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in the preceding paragraph; hence, this appeal.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant has been involved in this case malafidely by the police; that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is opposed to the law and facts and is against the' principles of natural justice; that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the appellant; that there is unexplained delay of 06 days in sending the sample of the alleged contraband to the chemical examiner; that no private / independent person has been made as mashir of the alleged recovery nor any efforts were taken by the police party though they were in advance information; that complainant SIP Ghulam Raza has deposed that mashirnama was written by SIP Haji Muhammad Altaf and such fact has not been mentioned in the mashirnama as well as in FIR which fact has not been considered by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment; that during course of cross-examination I.O has deposed that he did not visit the place of the incident and did not record the statement of any independent person from surrounding area of the occurrence; that Mashir ASI Ghulam Nabi has deposed that the case property was weighed on manual scale, whereas complainant SIP Ghulam Raza has deposed that he weighed the chars and heroin through digital scale; however , these important aspects of the case have not been discussed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment; that I.O in his cross-examination has deposed that he has not investigated about owner of the Rickshaw or collected criminal record of the appellant. Learned Counsel lastly prayed that this appeal may be allowed and appellant may be acquitted of the charge.
8. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General appearing for the State has fully suppo rted the impugned judgment by submitting that huge quantity of chars and heroin had been recovered from the possession of appellant, which is offence against the society and such huge quantity of contraband could not easily be foisted upon him; that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case; hence, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.
9. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.G for the State and have perused the material available on record.
10. From the perusal of record, it appear s that complainant SIP Ghulam Raza Mari (PW-1) has deposed that on 16.11.2013 he along with his subordinate staff left Police Station Hatri vide Roznamcha Entry No.04 for patrolling and when they reached Hala Naka they received spy information that person is coming in Rickshaw for selling the heroin and chars. On such information, they reached at Malak Petrol Pump. At about 1200 hours they apprehended the accused. On inquiry , he disclosed his name as Asadullah son of Moosa Brohi, resident of village Haji Sher Muhammad, District Benazirabad and at present Aliabad Colony near Malak Petrol Pump. Due to non-availability of private persons they took the search in presence of SIP Muhammad Altaf and ASI Ghulam Nabi Panhwar and recovered two patties of chars from right side of his shalwar and on weighing it became one KG, whereas one KG of heroin was recovered from the left side of his Shalwar and besides an amount of Rs.300/- were secured from him. He further deposed that they found two katas of chars and heroin kept under the back seat of Rickshaw , one kata of white cloth, containing charas and on weighing it became eight KGs, whereas the other plastic white kata contained heroin and on weighing it became 14 K.Gs. He took 10 grams as samples from each recovered narcotics and sealed the same for chemical examination, while the remaining case property was sealed separately . He prepared such mashirnama of arrest and recovery and also obtained the signatures of mashirs, namely SIP Muhammad Altaf and ASI Ghulam Nabi. Thereafter , they brought the accused and case property to Police Station, where SIP Ghulam Raza being complainant of the case lodged FIR against the accused on behalf of the State under Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Thereafter , 161, Cr.P.C. statements of PWs were recorded and samples of chars and heroin were sent to the chemical examiner for analysis on 22.11.2013 through SIP Dhani Bux and such positive report was received. The challan against the appellant was submitted and the evidence of the complainant SIP Ghula m Raza was examined, who was also cross-examined by the learned Counsel representing the accused. In his evidence, the complainant has denied the suggestion of having foisted the chars and heroin against the accused. The complainant also denied the suggestion of having registered a false case against the accused. We have also examined the evidence of PW-2 SIP Muhammad Altaf, who has acted as Mashir of the case. He has narrated the entire facts by stating that accused was driving the Rickshaw at the time of incident. He affirmed the fact that from the rear seat of Rickshaw one bundle containing 14 patties of chars and 14 packets of heroin powder were secured. He also affirmed that the patties secured from the fold of shalwar of the accused were found to be of chars and heroin containing 1 K.G each, while 14 patties of chars became 08 K.Gs and 14 packets of heroin powder became 15 K.Gs. He also affirmed the fact that 10 grams were separated from each packet and sealed the same separately for sending to the chemical examiner for analysis. The remaining property was also sealed separately . This witness was also cross-examined and during examination he denied the suggestion,that accused was not driving the Rickshaw at the time of his arrest. He also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely against the accused at the instance of his superiors.
11. We have carefully perused the evidence of the witnesses and have found that they have constituted an uninterrupted chain of facts ranging from seizure and forensic analysis of the contraband. They are in comfortable unison and all the salient features regarding interception of the huge quantity of chars as well as steps taken subsequently , The separation of samples for chemical analysis taken from each bundle is found by us as exercise sufficient to constitute forentic proof. At the time of arrest, the appellant was driving the Rickshaw; thus, he was responsible for transportation of narcotics alleged to have been recovered from his possession. We have also examined the report of chemical examiner available on the record as Ex-9/A and have also found that it corroborates the evidence of all the police officials, who have stand in juxtaposition with the chemical report. It is a matter of record that chars was recovered from the exclusive possession of the appellant on 16.11.2013 while he was present in Rickshaw and the recovered property was sent to the chemical examiner for analysis on 22.11.2013, who did not find any tampering with the sealed parcels of sample of the contraband so recovered from the appellant; hence, the report of chemical examiner came positively . So far as, the delay in sending sample of chars as per learned Counsel is concerned, the same has been explained by the prosecution to the extent that the safe custody of the case property during intervening period has been established by producing Extract of Entry No.43 of Property Register No.19 at Ex-20/A during the evidence at SIP Dhani Bux, who has deposed during his cross-examination that the case property viz, heroin and chars was made over to him in sealed condition and he had not de-sealed it. He himself had deposited the samples of the case property to the chemical examiner's office at Karachi on 22.11.2013. This fact has also been corroborated by the chemical examiner , who has mentioned in his report that; "two sealed cloth parcels each with 03 seals perfect and as per copy sent". Even the remaining case property was lying in the malkhana till submission of challan and PW Dhani Bux also deposited the remaining case property with the trial Court at the time of submission of the charge sheet against the accused; hence, the chars and heroin recovered from the possession of the appellant has been proved to the extent of realization. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PWs is not reliable as the same suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies has no force until and, unless some cogent and reliable evidence is brought on record, which may suggest that the appellant is innocent or his act is beyond any doubt. The alleged contradictions in the testimony of PWs Nos.1 to 4 being urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant to appear to be minor in nature and those seem to be not fatal to the case of prosecution. It is well-settled principle of law that minor discrepancies in the evidence of raiding party do not shake their trustworthiness as observed by the honourable apex Court in the case of the State/ANF v. Muhammad Arshad (2017 SCMR 283). So far as, the defence plea raised by the appellant that chars and heroin has been foisted upon him at the behest of one Mir Maqbool in order to pressurize his brother Abdul Manan to withdraw from giving his evidence in a murder case is concerned. On query of the Court, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the complainant nor the witnesses of the case are party of the said murder case either the complainant party or the accused and they have no direct nexus with the said murde r case. Thus, the above defence plea appears to be afterthought, which has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. Admittedly , the appellant was arrested by the police and from his possession a huge quantity of chars and heroin was recovered and it would be enough for a person of prudent mind that how such a huge quantity of contraband, the cost whereof would be in millions of rupees, can be foisted upon the accused. At this juncture, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shazia Bibi v. The State 2020 SCMR 460 wherein it has been observed as under:- "3. Quantity recovered, rather substantial in volume / weight, cannot be possibly foisted upon a female to victimize her husband, himself a most suitable target, if at all the police had an axe to grind. All the prosecution witnesses including those of recovery have been found by us well within tune with one anothe r; soon after her arrest, with the assistance of a female staffer, she was produced before the Magistrate who remitted her into judicial custody , a most opportune occasion to raise protes t; her silence goes a long way to rebut the belatedly related story that otherwise may not find a buyer . Argument that the forensic report sans protocol is beside the mark as well inasmuch as tests carried out by the analyst are vividly mentioned therein, reproduced for the convenience of reference.
"Test performed on Received Item(s) of Evidence
1. Top load balance was used for weighing.
2. Chemical Spot Tests were used for Presumptive Testing.
3. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry was used for confirmation.
Result and Conclusions Item # 01 3982 gram(s) of dark brown resinous material in sealed parcel contains Charas. "
Above details mentioned in the forensic report substantially / sufficiently qualify to meet the statutory requirements.
Findings concurrently arrived by the Courts below , being well within the remit of law, do not call for interference.
Petition fails. Leave declined..
12. The afore-referred view has also been taken in the case of Izzat Ullah and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 1975 ), wherein the honourable Supreme Court has held that; "3. Confessional statements before Tilla Muhammad, Judicial Magistrate (PW-1), though retracted subsequently present formidable piece of evidence, inexorably pointed upon the convicts' culpability . Mst. Robina made disclosure within .a small span of time soon after her arrest, during her first appearance before the Magistrate; Izzat Ullah followed the suit; both of them after having been administered warnings and cautions, though disapprovingly on a printed format, nonetheless, made statements otherwise found by us as voluntary , natural and truthful with relevant details compatible with the salient features of the case; brief interregnum rules out hypothesis of manipulation. Other pieces of evidence have been found by us as independently sufficient to drive home the charge; forensic report confirms the lethal nature of the substance, recovered in a quantity that cannot be possibly foisted in routine; seizure of the vehicle clinches the case."
13. As far as, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to safe custody of the property is concerned; this argument does not have any sanctity as the property viz. heroin and chars so ' recovered from the appellant has been proved adequately by examining the evidence of Mashir SIP Dhani Bux (PW-4) who appears to have remained in corroboration with the chemical examiner's report. In this respect, we are also fortified by the case of Izzat Ullah and another v . The State (supra), wherein the honourable Supreme Court has held that; "3....Argument of safe custody does not hold much water as Abdul Faraz 28/C (PW-10) took the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with Ranhdari Ex.PW8/3 was not cross-examin ed despite opportunity . Forensic Report (Ex.PZ) corroborates the position taken by the said PW ."
14. The next argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that he has questioned upon the veracity of the police witnesses that their evidence is not trustworthy and that no independent or private person has been cited as witless; therefore, as per him the case of the prosecution is doubtful. This argument of the learned Counsel also has no force; such argument could have been considered when the evidence of police officials is based upon untruthfulness casting uncertainty , enmity and ambiguity . The police officials are good witnesses as any other private witness and their evidence is subject to same standard of proof and the principles of the scrutiny as applicable to any other category of witnesses; in absence of any animus, infirmity or flaw in their evidence, their testimony can be relied without demur . Even otherwise, the prosecution witnesses/ namely Ghulam Nabi and Ghulam Raza have deposed that none from the public was present at the place of incident at the time of commission of the alleged incident. Refer ence in this regard may be made from the case of Izat Ullah and another v. The State (supra), wherein the honourable apex Court has observed as under:- "3 .......... Absence of public witnesses is beside the mark; public recusal is an unfortunate norm. Prosecution witnesses are in a comfortable unison: being functionaries of the Republic, they are second to none in status and their evidence can be relied upon unreservedly , if found trustworthy , as in the case in' hand. Both the courts below have undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the prosecution case and concurred in their conclusions regarding petitioners' guilt and we have not been able to take a different view than concurrently taken by them. Petitions fail.
Dismissed."
15. Same view has also been taken in the case of Hussain Shah and others v. The State (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 132 ) wherein the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:- "3. Hussain Shah appellant was driving the relevant vehicle when it was intercepted and from a secret cavity of that vehicle a huge quantity of narcotic substance had been recovered and subsequently a report received from the Chemical Examiner had declared that the recovered substance was Charas. The prosecution witnesses deposing about the alleged recovery were public servants who had no ostensible reason to falsely implicate the said appellant in a case of this nature. The said witnesses had, made consistent statements fully incriminating the appellant in the alleged offence. Nothing has been brought to our notice which could possibly be used to doubt the veracity of the said witnesses."
16. Yet another view with regard to the above reference has been taken by the honourable Supreme Court vide judgment dated 09.01.2020 passed in the case of Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State and another (2020 SCMR 474), wherein it has been observed as under:- "Prosecution case is hinged upon the statements of Aamir Masood, TSI (PW-2) and Abid Hussain, 336-C (PW-3); being officials of the Republic, they do not seem to have an axe to grind agains t the petitioner , intercepted at a public place during routine search. Contr aband, considerable in quantity , cannot be possibly foisted to fabricate a fake charge, that too, without any apparent reason; while furnishing evidence , both the witnesses remained throughout consistent and confidence inspiring and as such can be relied upon without a demur ."
17. For the foregoing reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant; therefore, the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2018, having been rightly passed, requires no interference by this Court; hence, is maintained and the appeal in hand being meritless was dismissed by short order dated 26.02.2020. These are the reasons for the said short order of even date.