KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J. By way of this judgment, we intend to dispose of instant Special Criminal Jail Appeal, whereby appellant/accused Muhammad Ali Javed son of Muhammad Shafi Malik has challenged his conviction awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III/Special Judge (CNS)/MCTC, Sukkur vide judgment dated 22-07-2019, in Special Case No.118/2013 (Re: The State v. Muhammad Ali Javed), emanating from FIR No.12/2015, registered at Police Station Excise, DIO Camp, Sukkur, for offence punishable under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and was awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one lac); in case of default in payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer S.I for one year. However, the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him.
2. Briefly, facts of the prosecution's case as narrated in the FIR lodged on 07-07-2015 at 09:30 a.m. by complainant-Excise Inspector Najeeb-ur-Rehman Domki, Incharge DIO Camp, Sukkur are that on the same day at 05:00 a.m. appellant/accused Muhammad Ali Javed was arrested while he was driving Truck Trailor bearing Registration No.TLA-215 Quetta from Excise Check Post, National Highway Road, Rohri by a team of Excise Police led by the complainant. On inquiry, the said Truck Trailor was found to be in name of Muhammad Noor. Moreover, by associating Excise Inspector Abdul Jabbar Abro and EC Muhammad Akhtar as mashirs, search of appellant/accused Muhammad Ali Javed and his Truck Trailor was made and Excise Police recovered 360 kilograms of charas in shape of 360 slabs from secret cavity of Truck Trailor, original identity card and Rs.5,000/- from body search of the appellant/accused and registration book and route permit from the dashboard of Truck Trailor. The appellant/accused and recovered case property were brought at DIO Camp, Sukkur, where FIR was registered.
3. On completion of the investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer submitted challan against the appellant/accused. After making compliance of section 265-C, Cr.P.C, a formal charge was framed, to which appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined complainant Excise Inspector Najeeb-ur-Rehman Domki who was Investigating Officer of the case, he produced numerous documents through his evidence. Prosecution then examined mashir EC Abdul Jabbar Abro and closed its side.
5. Statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he denied the allegations levelled against him and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
However, he neither examined himself on oath nor adduced any evidence in his defence.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, learned trial Court convicted the appellant/accused as is stated above.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case; that the charas has been foisted upon the appellant by the Excise Police; that there are major contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution; that EC Muhammad Akhtar, through whom the samples were sent to the chemical examiner has not been examined to prove the safe custody of the alleged recovered narcotic substance; that no private person was associated to act as mashir. Lastly, he prayed that the appellant be acquitted of the charge. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the cases reported as Mst. Razia Sultana v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 1300), The State through Regional Director ANF v. imam Bakhsh and others (2018 SCMR 2039), Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State (2021. SCMR 451) and Zubair Khan v. The State (2021 SCMR 492).
8. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State has completely supported the impugned judgment and argued that the flaws so pointed out by the learned defence counsel are immaterial and minor in nature; that the sample of charas was sent to the chemical examiner promptly; that the prosecution has proven its case against the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Learned DPG placed reliance upon the cases reported as Kashif Amir v. The State (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 1052), Asif v. The State (PLD 2013 Sindh 586), Nawab Ali v. The State (2014 PCr.LJ 885), Abdul Rehman alias Juman v. The State (2018 PCr.LJ 1015), Muhammad Saleh and another v. The State (2019 PCr.LJ Note 146), Asmat Ali v. The State (2020 SCMR 1000) and Shabbir Hussain v. The State (2021 SCMR 198).
9. We have considered arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State and perused the record carefully with their able assistance.
10. Perusal of record reveals that on 07-07-2015, complainant-Excise Inspector Najeeb-ur-Rehman Domki left DIO Camp, Sukkur and during checking of vehicles, saw the appellant driving Truck Trailor bearing Registration No.TLA-215 Quetta from Excise Check Post, National Highway Road, Rohri. He was stopped being suspicious and alighted from the Truck Trailor. On inquiry, he introduced himself as Muhammad Ali Javed. From his possession and search of the Truck Trailor, Rs.5,000/-, original identity card, registration book and 360 kilograms of charas in shape of 360 slabs were recovered. The charas was lying in the secret cavity of the Truck Trailor. 18 kilograms of charas was separated, wrapped and sealed for chemical examination and report, whereas, the remaining property was also sealed.
11. Undeniably, the prosecution witnesses have deposed in correlation with each other in terms of seizure and forensic analysis of the contraband. Details provided about salient features is consistent, regarding interception of the huge quantity of charas as well as all the steps taken thereafter. One kilogram was separated from each bag of contraband and was sent to the chemical examiner, which is found by us being exercise more than sufficient to constitute forensic proof. At the time of arrest, the accused was sitting in the driver's seat of the Truck Trailor and from secret cavity of the Truck Trailor, 360 kilograms of charas were secured, therefore, he was responsible for the same alleged recovered charas to have been secured from his possession. We have also examined the report of chemical examiner available on the record and noticed that it fully corroborates the evidence of both the prosecution witnesses. It is a matter of record that charas was secured from the secret cavity of the Truck Trailor on 07-07-2015 and the recovered case property was separately sealed from 18 kilograms representative sample which was sent to the chemical examiner for analysis promptly, who did not find any tampering with the sealed parcel of the narcotic substance so recovered from the appellant, hence, the report of the chemical examiner came in positive. Moreover, all the witnesses have deposed that the case property in Court is the same and they were at no point cross-examined on the same point by the learned defence counsel alleging tampering with the same. There is no delay in sending the charas to the chemical examiner besides a few hours which one could safely assume is the time taken during completion of necessary formalities and due process. The case property for the chemical examiner was sent through EC Muhammad Akhtar as sealed by the complainant on the spot in the shape of plastic 'kata' containing 18 slabs. Such fact has also been fully corroborated by the chemical examiner's report wherein it was stated that "Plastic kata contains eighteen (18) black brown coloured soft slabs (patties) each wrapped in panee and kept in printed panee packet which kept in plastic theilli". Therefore, the charas so recovered from the possession of the appellant has been proved to the extent of its 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 at all until and unless some cogent and reliable substance is brought on record which may suggest that the appellant is innocent and that his case is beyond any shadow of doubt. With regard to transportation and/or possession of narcotics, technicalities of procedural nature or otherwise can be overlooked, if the case stands proved then the approach of the Court becomes 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 and minor discrepancies in the evidence of raiding party do not shake their trustworthiness as expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State/ANF v. Muhammad Arshad (2017 SCMR 283).
12. Without doubt, the appellant was arrested by the Excise Police officials and from his exclusive possession, a huge quantity of charas was recovered and it would be enough for a person of prudent mind to realize that such huge quantity of contraband could not be foisted upon the accused. In this respect, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the judgment dated 08-01-2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shazia Bibi v. The State (2020 SCMR 460). So far as, the contention of learned defence counsel that the evidence of Excise Police officials is not trustworthy and that no independent or private person has been cited as witness, therefore, per him the case of the prosecution is doubtful, is concerned, same has no force as such contention raised by learned counsel would have been considered when the evidence of Excise Police officials is based upon untruthfulness casting uncertainty, enmity and ambiguity. As far as their testimonies are concerned, there is no universal rule that evidence of an interested witness per se must be invariably corroborated by independent evidence. If that were the case, then why would the courts at all take into account the testimony of interested witness? Similarly, in the case of Hussain Shah land others v. The State (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 132). the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "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."
13. Now adverting to the contentions raised with regard to safe custody of the property by the defence counsel, it does not have any sanctity as the property viz. charas so recovered from the appellant had been proved adequately by examining the complainant and mashir, even otherwise, they were not cross-examined on this part. As far as non-examination of EC Muhammad Akhtar is concerned, we are of the considered view that the bearer of the case property is only needed to be examined in cases of delay in the dispatch of the same, however in the peculiar circumstances of this situation, such is not the case, therefore debunking the argument against the examination of the deliverer of narcotic substance to the chemical examiner. Furthermore, per the chemical examiner's report, the seals were received in intact condition which rules out any question of tampering and it was in fact the examiner who had broken the seals to open the sealed contents. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent Judgment dated 03-03-2020 in Jail Petition No.712 of 2018 (Re. Zahid and Riaz Ali v. The State 2020 SCMR 590) has observed that "the chemical examiner's report produced by the lady doctor states that the seals of specimens sent for chemical examination were received intact and it was the chemical examiner who had broken open the seals, therefore, the contention of the petitioners' learned counsel regarding the safe transmission of the specimens is discounted both by this fact as well as by the fact that no question was put regarding tampering of the said seals.......... this is not sufficient to secure an acquittal because there was substantial corroboratory evidence to secure the conviction of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt." Another contention raised was regarding the presence of recovery mashir and the prosecution alleged that the signature was obtained from the mashirs later on and that they were not present on the spot. Such contention holds little to no weight primarily because no such question was put before the mashir in his cross-examination nor was such an argument raised before the trial Court.
14. In the recent case of Matiullah v. The State 2020 SCMR 1222 (Criminal Petition No. 18 of 2019), the Hon'ble Apex Court through judgment dated 01-07-2020 has been pleased to observe in a case involving recovery of only 7,200 grams of charas that "the witnesses comfortably responded the cross-examination and the learned counsel has not been able to point out any flaw or discrepancy in their narratives either on salient features of the case or matters collateral therewith; they are in a unison that inspires confidence and, thus, absence of support from the public does not diminish value of their testimony, fortified by a ring to truth. Reluctance by the public to stand in aid of law is symptomatic of abysmal civic apathy which cannot be allowed to be used as an escape route from justice. Being functionaries of the Republic, both of them are second to none in status; their official acts and declarations are statutorily presumed as intra vires and unless proved contrarily and in the absence of any flaw or discrepancy in their depositions, their testimony cannot be conditioned by additional riders. It was further observed that forensic report sufficiently details tests applied for determination of narcotic character of the contraband, carried out on the samples transmitted from safe custody and as such is not violative of 'protocol' directed by the rules."
15. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has undoubtedly proven the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond shadow of any doubt. The learned counsel for the appellant has Prima facie failed to point out any material or procedural illegality in the impugned judgment or any infirmity committed by the trial Court. Therefore, the captioned Special Criminal Jail Appeal is dismissed, consequently, the impugned judgment is maintained.
16. Above are the reasons of our short order announced on 05-05-2021.