SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J. Calls in question the veracity and legality of the judgment dated 20th April 2022 (Impugned judgment") handed down by learned Special Judge of the court constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997-Sessions Judge, Pishin ("Trial Court"), whereby appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ("Act of 1997") and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year RI with fine of Rs.15000/- or in default of fine to further undergo fifteen (15) days' SI, extending benefit of Section 382-B of. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ("Cr.P.C.") in a case bearing FIR No:118/2021 (Ex.P/4-A) registered with Police Station City, Pishin for the appellant having been found in possession of 1020 grams of baked charas.
2. Crime report (Ex.P/1-A) lodged by complainant Muhammad Idrees SI (PW-1) reveals that on 30th July 2021, he was on patrol duty along with other police contingent and when they reached near Old Graveyard at about 9:00 p.m., a person on seeing them tried to run away, who was apprehended and known to be Rozi Khan alias Chako; he was found to be in possession of 1020 grams of baked charas, whereof 05 gram was separated as sample, secured through two separate parcels bearing Parcel No.1 and Parcel No.1-A respectively. Samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory ("FSL"), whereof report (Ex.P/4-C) was issued by Federal Analyst, Government of Balochistan, Quetta.
3. After necessary investigation, the appellant was remanded to judicial custody and was sent up to face the trial before the Trial Court. In order to establish the case, the prosecution produced as many as four witnesses, whereafter on close of the prosecution side, the appellant refuted the allegations put forward by the prosecution as contemplated under section 342, Cr.P.C. as well as stepped into the witness box in his defence.
Conclusion of the trial, followed in a verdict of guilt in the above terms.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the prosecution has failed to establish safe transmission of the Narcotics, offending Rule 6 of the Act of 1997 (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001 ("Analyst Rules of 2001"). He maintained that there are material contradictions, which were overlooked by the Trial Court, which makes the impugned judgment liable to set aside.
Added that name of the appellant is Daulat Khan son of Abdullah instead of Rozi Khan alias Chako son of Gul Muhammad. Adversely, learned APG controverted the contentions so put forth by learned counsel Tor the appellant and urged that none of the provisions referred to by him have been violated while making recovery of the narcotics. He supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the same does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or misleading of evidence, thus, the appeal merits dismissal.
5. Case of prosecution hinges upon the testimony of seizing officer Muhammad Idrees SI (PW-1), Shaukat Ali HC (PW-2), recovery witness of the memo (Ex.P/1-A) who produced contrabands contained in parcel No.1-A as (Art.PI1), sample of seal (Art.P/2) and plastic sack containing contraband hashish (Art.P/3). The deposition of both the said witnesses are consistent and in line on the point of apprehending the appellant near the graveyard after an attempt by him to flee, search of his person, recovery of hashish weighing 1020 grams taking sample of 05 gram in parcels Nos.1 and 2 respectively. In one breath, both of them, while corroborating each other identified the Person to be Rozi Khan as per them told by appellant-convict and rightly identifying him in the court to be the person from whom the contrabands were recovered. In such circumstances, the plea of the appellant that his name is Daulat on of Abdullah and not Rozi Khan alias Chako son of Gul Muhammad is of no help. The statements of PWs-1 and 2 have been analyzed with the statement of Muhammad Naseem SI (PW-4) who denied the name of appellant to be Daulat son of Abdullah. Moreso, after identifying the appellant in the court to be the same person from whom charas was recovered, the name itself loses significance. Appellant has filed instant appeal, shouting his name as Rozi Khan alias Chako as well. Baz Muhammad' ASI (PW-3) stated to be on duty on the fateful evening, discharging duty as Head Moharrar; he deposed' that Muhammad Naseem, SI (PW-4) I.O came to his office and handed over the said two parcels relating to contraband and sample respectively, whereof entries were made in the register bearing No.19 of Malkhana. He was cross-examined but nothing beneficial could be extracted in favour of the appellant. Muhammad Naseem SI (PW-4) 1.0 of the case testified, corroborating statement of Baz Muhammad ASI (PW-3) regarding handing over the sealed parcels, keeping the same in the safe custody in Malkhana and further transmitting the parcel of the sample to FSL by him. Scanning the evidence from various angles, the events narrated has persuaded us to believe that there is no flaw from the point of recovery of charas, making parcels thereof, keeping it in Malkhana and then transmitting the same to FSL for analysis in an unbroken chain of transmission by seizing officer to 1.0, to Head Moharrar (PW-3) and onward transmission to the FSL by I.O (PW-4).
6. We are mindful of the judgments rendered by the apex Court in "lkramullah's case" (2015 SCMR 1002), "Imam Bakhsh's case" (2018 SCMR 2039) and "Khairul Bashar's case" (2019 SCMR 930). The facts and circumstances of the cases ibid are altogether away from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In those cases, the reports were found to be inconclusive for not adhering to the protocols of the test applied, frustrating the very purpose and object of the act and Rule 6 of the Analyst Rules of 2001. Whereas, in the instant case, the test applied, protocols (applied to carry out the test and result of the test) finds mention in the FSL report (Ex. P/4-C) and as such the report in hand of the instant case being in accordance with the directives of the protocols mentioned in the judgments ibid in letter and spirit have been followed, making the FSL report (Ex.P/4-C) a comprehensive and conclusive. In this regard we would like to refer to the judgment of "Saifullah Khan v. The State", (2021 SCMR 2005), "Qaiser Javed Khan v. The State", (PLD 2020 SC 57)
"Liaquat Ali v. The State", (2022 SCMR 1097) and "Muhammad Rasool v. The State", 2022 SCMR 1145).
7. Aftermath of the above discussion is that the prosecution witnesses have been found by us to be consistent and trustworthy and confidence inspiring, which is affirmed by the FSL report (Ex.P14-C) to be narcotics drug without shadow of any doubt and, as such, the verdict of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Judge has been found by us to be based on proper appraisal of the evidence, suffering from no infirmity or misreading of the evidence, calling no interference at all and as such the impugned judgment is hereby maintained.
The appeal having been found to be devoid of merits is dismissed.
The appellant is on bail. He be taken into custody forthwith and be shifted to District Jail, Quetta to serve out his remaining sentence. In case he is not arrested, perpetual warrants against him be issued and executed through concerned police station.