Riazat Ali Sahar, J.: - Through this Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 410, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the appellant Muhammad Akram has challenged the judgment dated 22.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshoro in Sessions Case No.84/2023 (re: The State v. Muhammad Akram), arising out of FIR/Crime No.356/2022 registered at Police Station Kotri under Section 8 of The Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Mainpuri Act, 2019. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 8 of the said Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months (with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.), and a fine of Rs.200,000/-, or six months' simple imprisonment in default of payment. The appellant was extended bail by this Court during pendency of the appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 24.12.2022, a police party of Police Station Kotri, headed by ASI Kouro Khan Abro, was on routine patrol. During patrolling, at about 1800 hours, when they reached Khanpur Link Road leading towards Jamshoro, near Marjan City, they noticed a person coming on foot from the direction of Jamshoro, carrying a black-coloured plastic shopper in his hand which appeared to be heavy. Upon seeing the police mobile, the said person attempted to flee; however, the police party managed to apprehend him along with the shopper.
Upon checking the shopper, 190 sachets of Mainpuri were recovered. On inquiry, the apprehended person disclosed his name as Muhammad Akram. On personal search, two currency notes of Rs.100/- each were also recovered from his possession. Due to the unavailability of private witnesses, HC Sharafuddin and PC Muhammad Ameen were cited as mashirs of the arrest and recovery. From the recovered Mainpuri, five sachets were separated and sealed in a parcel for chemical analysis. A mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared at the spot in the presence of the aforementioned mashirs. The entire arrest and recovery process was completed between 1800 to 1830 hours. Thereafter, the accused along with the recovered property was brought to the Police Station, where the FIR was formally registered.
3. PW-04, ASI Kouro Khan, who is the complainant and head of the police party, deposed that on 24.12.2022, he along with other police officials left the Police Station for routine patrolling. During patrolling, when they proceeded towards Jamshoro via Link Road Khanpur and reached near Marjan City at around 1800 hours, they observed a person coming on foot from the Jamshoro side, holding a black-coloured shopper in his hand. On noticing the police mobile, the said person attempted to flee; however, being suspected of illegal activity, he was apprehended along with the shopper. Upon checking the shopper, it was found to contain 190 sachets of Mainpuri. On inquiry, the apprehended person disclosed his name as Akram Ali. From the recovered material, five sachets of Mainpuri were separated and sealed in a parcel for the purpose of chemical analysis. A mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared at the spot in the presence of mashirs, HC Sharafuddin and PC Muhammad Ameen. Thereafter, the accused along with the recovered property was brought to the Police Station, where arrival entry No.30 was recorded at 1900 hours.
PW-4 lodged FIR on behalf of the State against the accused. He further deposed that he later forwarded the sealed sample to the chemical laboratory, and subsequently received the Chemical Examiner's report, which confirmed the contraband nature of the seized substance.
In cross-examination, PW-4 stated that after leaving the Police Station, they first patrolled Al- Madina Chowk, where they remained for about 30 minutes before reaching the place of incident near Marjan City. He admitted that members of the public frequently pass through the location where the incident took place but voluntarily added that at the relevant time, no public person was available. He also admitted that the size of the shopper recovered from the accused was not mentioned in the mashirnama or the FIR.
4. PW-01, HC Sharafuddin, was a member of the raiding team and acted as a mashir to the recovery proceedings. He fully corroborated the testimony of PW-4, ASI Kouro Khan. He deposed that ASI Kouro Khan examined the shopper bag recovered from the accused in his presence, which was found to contain a substantial quantity of Mainpuri. The contraband was seized and sealed on the spot, and the mashirnama was signed by him and PC Muhammad Ameen. He confirmed that due to non-availability of private witnesses, he and PC Ameen were nominated as mashirs. He also identified the sealed packets produced in Court as the same ones recovered from the appellant.
In his cross-examination, PW-01 admitted that the place of incident is situated on a link road and that members of the public do frequently cross from there during daytime. He maintained, however, that the recovery was effected strictly in accordance with law and denied the defence suggestion that the recovery was fabricated or planted upon the accused. Minor queries were put to him regarding the time and distances involved in the incident, which he answered from memory, and nothing material was elicited to impeach his credibility.
5. PW-02, SIP Barkat Ali, was the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case. He deposed that he took over the investigation following the registration of the FIR. He stated that he visited the place of incident, prepared a sketch of the crime scene, and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. He further testified that he took five sachets from the recovered Mainpuri for chemical analysis. He deposed, "I received back the sealed sample parcel from the Malkhana Incharge and dispatched the same to the chemical laboratory, Karachi through ASI Kouro Khan." The report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.5/G) was received in due course, confirming the presence of harmful constituents in the seized substance and declaring it injurious to health and unfit for human consumption.PW-02 also produced entries of the police station diary, evidencing the departure of the police party for patrolling (Entry No.18) and their return with the accused and case property (Entry No.25). He affirmed that the case property remained in safe custody, and its chain of custody--from seizure to dispatch--remained intact and secure throughout.
During cross-examination, PW-02 was questioned regarding minor discrepancies, including the precise weight of the seized contraband and the delay of two days in dispatching the samples to the chemical laboratory. In response, he clarified that approximately 190 sachets of Mainpuri were recovered, which were sealed at the spot, and the samples were dispatched on 26.12.2022 after completing all procedural formalities. He categorically denied the possibility of any tampering with the sealed samples. The defence failed to bring on record any material contradiction to discredit the efficacy of the investigation or to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Chemical Examiner's report.
6. PW-03, HC Muhammad Yaseen, was the Incharge of the Malkhana at the relevant time. He deposed that on 24.12.2022, SIP Barkat Ali Qambrani handed over to him the case property, which consisted of one sealed sample parcel, one black-coloured shopper containing 185 sachets of Mainpuri, and two currency notes of Rs.100/-. He duly deposited the said property in the Malkhana vide Entry No.186 of the Malkhana Register.PW-03 further deposed that on 26.12.2022, he returned the sealed sample parcel to SIP Barkat Ali, who dispatched the same to the Chemical Laboratory, Karachi, through ASI Kouro Khan for analysis. He identified the case property produced in Court as the same that had remained in his custody and confirmed that the seal on the parcel was intact when it was returned for dispatch.
7. It is noted that the prosecution did not examine any private person from the vicinity as an eyewitness, ostensibly because none was available or willing at the time of the raid. Two police officials (PW-01 and PW-04) witnessed and proved the recovery, while the third official (PW-02) conducted the investigation and fourth is the Incharge Malkhana (PW-3). After the prosecution evidence was completed, the appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. In his statement (Ex.09), the appellant denied the allegations and took the plea that the police had falsely implicated him. He stated that he was a shopkeeper running a grocery store and suggested that he had a dispute with local police officials over "paym ent for goods", implying that the police framed him in this case out of vengeance. However, he did not opt to appear on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor did he produce any witness in his defence. The appellant's bald allegation of ill-will was not substantiated by any material on record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction is unsustainable in law and facts.
He contended that all the prosecution witnesses are police officials, with no independent witness from the public, which casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. He emphasized alleged contradictions in the statements of PW-01 and PW-04 regarding the timing of the recovery and the handling of the case property, arguing that such discrepancies entitle the appellant to the benefit of doubt (in dubio pro reo, meaning when in doubt, the accused is to be favored). The counsel further submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C. (requiring independent witnesses for search) were not followed, rendering the recovery doubtful. It was also argued that the quantity of Gutka/Mainpuri allegedly recovered is exaggerated and that the chain of custody of the samples was not proven beyond doubt, calling into question the admissibility of the Chemical Examiner's report. On these grounds, the defence prayed that the conviction be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.
9. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General supported the conviction and sentence. He maintained that the evidence of the police officials is consistent, confidence-inspiring and sufficient to sustain the conviction. He argued that police witnesses are competent witnesses in law, and their testimony cannot be discarded merely because of their official status. The prosecution pointed out that no enmity or malice was proven against the police witnesses that would motive them to falsely implicate the appellant. The so-called contradictions highlighted by defence were minor and did not go to the root of the case. The learned DPG submitted that the appellant was caught red-handed with a large quantity of hazardous substances, confirmed by scientific evidence (chemical analysis), thus proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Minor omissions or lapses, if any, in investigation do not negate the overwhelming evidence of guilt. He contended that non-compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. (calling independent witnesses) is not fatal in cases of recovery of contraband during raid or patrolling circumstances, especially under special statutes like the Gutka/Mainpuri Prohibition Act, akin to narcotics cases. Finally, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal, stating that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and does not warrant interference.
10. After careful reappraisal of the entire evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is well-founded. The reasons for this conclusion are discussed below.
11. It is a settled principle that the testimony of police officials is admissible and can be relied upon just as that of any other witness, provided it is trustworthy. There is no legal bar to base a conviction on the statement of a police officer if it inspires confidence. The mere fact that the witnesses wear a police uniform is not a valid ground to discard their evidence, especially when the defence has failed to show any malice or ill-will on their part. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that police witnesses are "as good and respectable as other public witnesses and their statements cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they were police employees".[1] In the present case, PW-01 and PW-04 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but the defence could not point out any motive for these officers to falsely implicate the appellant. No prior enmity, grudge or ill-will was even alleged against PW-01 or PW-04. The vague claim made by the appellant (that he was framed due to a dispute over payment for goods) remained unsubstantiated; not a shred of evidence was produced to support this allegation. Law holds that if an accused imputes a motive to prosecution witnesses, the burden lies on him to prove it, and failure to do so renders the allegation an empty excuse. Here, the police officials had no axe to grind against the appellant; they were discharging their official duty in seizing contraband in an effort to enforce the ban on Gutka/Mainpuri. In absence of any proof of animus, their evidence carries full weight. Both PW-01 and PW-04 remained consistent on material particulars of the raid and recovery, and their accounts mutually corroborate each other on all significant points. Minor variances in their testimony - such as a few minutes' difference in the stated time of arrest or whether the seal was kept by PW-04 or handed to the Moharrir - are natural and do not dent the core of the prosecution case.
12. The defence's criticism that no private person witnessed the recovery is misdirected. While joining independent witnesses is generally desirable to dispel any doubt of unfairness, it is well-recognized that in cases involving narcotics or other contraband recovered on the spot, strict compliance with Section 103, Cr.P.C. is not always practicable, nor is it mandatory under special enactments. The raid in this case was conducted on a sudden tip-off in a public area; the evidence shows that passersby were asked but none agreed to act as witness. The police cannot compel citizens to become mashirs, and unwillingness of bystanders - common in such situations - cannot be held against the prosecution. What is essential is that the witnesses who did observe the recovery (even if officials) testify credibly, and here they have. Our view finds support from numerous judgments where convictions were sustained on the testimony of official witnesses alone, the courts reiterating that the requirement of independent mashir is one of caution rather than an absolute rule. In the present case, both police witnesses gave a coherent and confidence-inspiring account of the recovery, which has intrinsic worth. Their depositions find support from contemporaneous documents (FIR and memo of recovery) and the subsequent chemical analysis. Thus, the absence of a private witness is not fatal to the prosecution. There is nothing on record to suggest that the police witnesses falsely deposed or that the recovered material was planted. Indeed, as discussed, no motive was shown for such a grave fabrication.
13. The defence highlighted a few discrepancies in the evidence, for instance about the exact time of the raid and a slight delay in dispatch of samples. Upon scrutiny, these appear to be minor discrepancies that do not touch the core of the prosecution's case. Human recollection is not an exact science; minor inconsistencies are natural when multiple witnesses recount an incident after some lapse of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently drawn a clear distinction between material contradictions and minor discrepancies. In Ansar and others v. The State (2023 SCMR 929), it was explained that a contradiction is a clear and material conflict in a witness's statement that undermines the prosecution's version, whereas minor discrepancies (e.g. slight differences in dates, times, or other peripheral details) are expected and do not corrode the credibility of a witness so long as the core narrative remains consistent. Trivial variations should not be given undue significance. The rule is well-established that only contradictions on material points (going to the root of the matter) may raise doubt, but minor inconsistencies which do not affect the material aspects are to be ignored. In the case at hand, the core facts - that the appellant was caught with a bag full of Mainpuries sachets, that those were seized and sealed in presence of mashirs, and that the chemical analysis confirmed the contraband nature of the substance - have been proved consistently and uniformly by the witnesses and documents. The so-called contradictions pointed out by learned counsel are of negligible significance: for example, PW-04 said we checked the recovered shopper and we separated five Mainpuries, while PW-01 Mashir stated that ASI counted the recovered Mainpuries and ASI Kouro Khan separated five Mainpuries and sealed in parcel for chemical analysis. Such slight timing differences or procedural sequence differences do not shake the prosecution case. They do not contradict what was recovered, from whom it was recovered, or where it was recovered - those critical facts remain unchallenged. The minor discrepancies are attributable to normal lapses in observation or memory and do not create any reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt. It bears emphasis that perfection is not required in every detail; the law demands that courts assess whether the overall evidence is coherent and convincing rather than microscopic consistency in every statement. Here, the overall evidence against the appellant is coherent and unambiguous.
14. Importantly, nothing has emerged in cross-examination of the PWs that could be termed a material contradiction. They remained steadfast on all key points. There is also no falsity of such a nature that would attract the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in all). Our superior courts have recently reinvigorated this doctrine in criminal cases, declaring that a witness who knowingly lies on a material point may be deemed unreliable in entirety.[2] However, this maxim is applied with caution and only when a deliberate falsehood on a crucial fact is apparent. In the present matter, the defence has not demonstrated that any PW lied about a material fact. The minor mistakes or omissions discussed above cannot be branded as willful lies; hence the rule falsus in uno is not triggered here. All material aspects of the prosecution story have been corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence, leaving no room to dub any witness as dishonest or their testimony as tainted with falsehood.
15. The evidence collected in this case has been presented in a legally admissible manner. The memo of recovery was prepared on the spot and was produced in court with the signatures of the mashirs, providing a documented contemporaneous record of the seizure. The FIR was promptly lodged without undue delay, further lending credence to the occurrence of the incident as described. Most significantly, the Chemical Examiner's report serves as scientific proof of the nature of the seized substance. Under the law, the report of an expert such as a Chemical Examiner is admissible in evidence and can be relied upon without formal proof (per Section 510, Cr.P.C., such reports are per se evidence). In this case, the report confirmed that the contraband recovered from the appellant was indeed Mainpuri containing harmful, prohibited ingredients. The report was positive, thereby corroborating the ocular account with forensic evidence. The defence challenged the chain of custody of the samples in passing, but on careful examination of the IO's testimony, I am satisfied that the chain remained intact. PW-04 complainant explained each link: the seized material was sealed at the spot; sample packets were taken from the bulk and sealed; the samples were dispatched by I.O through PW-4 ASI Kouro Khan with proper documentation (Road Certificate and forwarding letter); and the seals were intact upon receipt by the Chemical Examiner. There is no indication of tampering or substitution of the samples at any stage. The slight delay of two days in sending the sample (as the incident occurred on a weekend evening and the sample was sent on the next working day) was properly explained and is inconsequential. Our courts have held that where the safe custody and safe transmission of the seized substance are established and the expert report is positive, the connection of the accused with the crime stands proved. In this case, the prosecution has provided sufficient material to link the appellant with the recovered contraband: the eyewitness accounts, the recovery memo, and the expert report all align to a single conclusion - that the appellant was in possession of a substantial quantity of Mainpuri, a banned substance, in contravention of the law. The admissibility of these pieces of evidence remains unshaken. There is no legal lacuna in the manner the evidence was collected or brought on record. The defence could not identify any violation of procedure that caused prejudice to the appellant. On the contrary, the proceedings show due compliance with the relevant law (The Gutka and Mainpuri Act, 2019) and the Code of Criminal Procedure at each step.
16. In view of the foregoing analysis, the overall evidence presents a complete and credible picture of guilt. The appellant was caught red-handed with contraband; the witnesses gave direct evidence of this fact; and the scientific report removed any doubt as to the nature of the substance. The prosecution case remains unimpeached on all substantive counts. There is no doubtful element in the case which would merit recourse to the rule of in dubio pro reo (benefit of doubt) in favor of the accused. That principle applies only where the prosecution evidence leaves reasonable doubt in the mind of the court; here, I find none. On the contrary, the evidence is so clear and convincing that it excludes every hypothesis of innocence. The defence has been unable to point out any material flaw or legal infirmity in the conviction.
17. For the reasons detailed above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The conviction of appellant Muhammad Akram for contravention of Section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Mainpuri Act, 2019 is maintained. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
18. As to the question of sentence, it is noted that the learned trial Judge already took a relatively lenient view by awarding 1 year and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment, which is above the statutory minimum of one year but well below the maximum of three years provided under Section 8 of the Act. In addition, a fine of Rs.200,000/- (two lac rupees) was imposed, which is the maximum fine stipulated by law, with a default term of six months' imprisonment. Given the quantity of hazardous substances recovered (which was considerable) and their pernicious effect on public health, the sentence awarded is proportionate to the offence and serves the purposes of deterrence and public interest. The appellant's counsel has pressed for reduction in sentence; in fact, the appellant has, through counsel, expressed willingness to serve out the sentence awarded. It has come on record that the appellant has already undergone and served his sentence as one year and eight months including remission He is on bail during the pendency of this appeal. His bail bonds are canceled and the surety is discharged. The sentence shall be treated as commenced/undertaken, and the period already spent in custody, including remission which is one year and eight months (as per jail role) shall be counted as sufficient to undergone the prescribed sentence. Taking lenient view of the matter, the appellant is ordered to be released forthwith, and the sentence fine is hereby recalled, particularly in light if the fact that only a limited quantity-specifically 190 sachets of Mainpuri-was recovered in the instant case.
19. The Case Property (the seized packets of Gutka and Mainpuri) is forfeited and shall be disposed of as per law - more specifically, since it consists of hazardous edible items, it shall be destroyed under the supervision of the trial court after the period of appeal/revision, if any, is over.
20. In conclusion, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are upheld with above modification.
The office is directed to send an intimation to the trial court. The appeal is dismissed with the above observations.
[1]Zafar v. The State (2008 SCMR 1254); Muhammad Khan v. The State(2008 SCMR 1616)
[2]Crl. Misc. Appln. No.200 of 2019 in Crl. A No.238-L of 2013, reported as (PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 265.- " We may observe in the end that a judicial system which permits deliberate falsehood is doomed to fail and a society which tolerate it is destined to self-destruct. Truth is the foundation of justice and justice is the core and bedrock of a civilized society and thus, any compromise on truth amounts to a compromise on a society's future as a just, fair and civilized society. Our judicial system has suffered a lot as a consequence of the above mentioned permissible deviation from the truth and it is about time that such a colossal wrong may be rectified in all earnestness.
Therefore, in light of the discussion made above, we declare that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus shall henceforth be an integral part of our jurisprudence in criminal cases and the same shall be given effect to, followed and applied by all the courts in the country in its letter and spirit.
It is also directed that a witness found by a court to have resorted to a deliberate falsehood on a material aspect shall, without any latitude, invariably be proceeded against for committing perjury. "