' Appellant Karin Scheppeit a German woman has been convicted by Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 and sentenced to suffer R.I. For 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs,5,00,000 and in default thereof to suffer R.I. For a further period of 1 year. It was, however, ordered that the period during which she remained as an under-trail prisoner be deducted from her substantive sentence as required by section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2, It is alleged by the prosecution that on 25-3-1989 at about 2-30 a.m. Abdul Hameed Khan Preventive Officer of Customs Karachi intercepted the appellant at International Departure Hall Terminal No,3 Karachi Airport while she was proceeding to Frunkfort by P.I.A. Flight No,PK-711. The appellant was carrying on, inter alia, a carom board in her baggage. On search 1.5 Kg. Of heroin powder was found cleverly concealed in the specially crafted wooden cavities of the said carom board. The heroin so recovered was seized under a Mashirnama. Specimen samples thereof were drawn and sealed in presence of Mashirs. The appellant was arrested and served with a notice under section 171 of the Customs Act. The case was investigated by Javed Akhtar Mughal P.O.
Customs Karachi. He interrogated the appellant and made enquiries from the Seizing Officer Abdul Hameed Khan and the Mashirs Mangal and Roban in whose presence the recovery was made. He then challenged the case showing one Hakeem Khan who was residing in Germany as an absconder.
3. At the trial the above-mentioned witnesses as well as the Chemical Examiner were examined, all of whom except Mashirs have supported the case of the prosecution. The Chemical Analyzer has produced his report and has stated that the sample was found to be heroin of commercial grade in the foot in of powder of brown color.
4. The appellant's counsel Mrs. Ismat Mehdi pressed the appeal mainly on the ground that Mashirs Mangal and Roban did not support the recovery. Both of them had admitted having signed the Mashirnarna but have stated that when they had subscribed the signatures on these documents the same were blank. They have further stated that they have put these signatures on the orders of the Customs Officers. She has relied upon certain rulings of this Court, wherein Nasir Aslarn Zahid, J.
Muhammad Farooq v. State in 1987 P Cr. L J 30 set aside the conviction of certain appellants in heroin cases when the Mashirs had become hostile observing that when there was solitary evidence of Seizing Officer rule of prudence requires that benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. The learned trial Court where also the same rulings were cited had discussed all these rulings in its judgment and had rightly distinguished the same from this case. The Mashirs of this case appeared to be won over by the accused. They filed their affidavits at bail stage voluntarily, wherein they had deposed to exonerate the accused. They were declared hostile and were cross- examined by the prosecution, wherefrom it was established that they had been won over. I agree with the reasoning and the findings of the trial Court and hold that these Mashirs bad resiled from truth for monetary considerations and therefore, no reliance can be placed in their evidence nor their having resiled from prosecution version can in any way discredit the testimony of the Seizing Officer. She also solicited clemency for the appellant especially in view of her sex and young age.
5. I am unable to persuade myself to accede to the contention of the appellant's counsel. It may be stated that smuggling of heroin from Pakistan has posed such a serious threat to humanity at large, in foreign countries as well as in Pakistan itself, that the menace requires to be curbed with an iron hand. Highly skilled and clever criminals are indulging in this trade and have spread a network of criminals throughout the world. Their terror is such that nobody is prepared to come forward to act as Mashir in such cases. The very fact that Mangal and c Roban the two Mashirs of this case, who were sweepers in the Customs House itself were also tampered with speaks volumes about itself. The Seizing Officer is an independent and impartial witness. He had no enmity whatsoever with the appellant who was a perfect stranger to him, and therefore, there could not have been any motive whatsoever for him to falsely implicate her. The learned trial Court had the opportunity of watching the demeanour of the Seizing Officer. He has decided to place reliance on the sole testimony of the Seizing Officer. I do not find any reason whatsoever to disagree with the reliance placed by the h arncd trial Court in the testimony of the Seizing Officer.
6. The counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on these decisions of this Court:-
(1) Muhammad Farooq v. State 1987 P Cr. L J 30;
(2) Abdul Jabbar v. State 1987 P Cr. L J 44;
(3) Abdur Rasheed v. State 1987 P Cr. L J 79;
(4) Zahid Ali and 2 others v. State PLD 1987 Kar.
339.
7. By now it is settled law that the evidence of the Seizing Officer alone is sufficient to prove the recovery if it is otherwise reliable and convincing. Reference in this connection may be made on Shahoo and others v. The State 1974 P Cr. L J 39 and a recent decision of Supreme Court reported in 1986 SCMR 17. In the latter ruling the accused was found in possession of Charas. Police Officer who searched accused was the solitary witness. It was held that there was no law that deposition of the solitary witness should not be believed. Concurrent findings of fact of two lower Courts when the recovery officer had no animus against the accused were not interfered with.
8. The learned trial Court had fully considered all the aspects of the case and has in a well- discussed judgment rightly repelled all the contentions of the defence counsel regarding the evidence of Chemical Analyser, non-mention of the taking out of sample of heroin in the Mashirnama, dismantling of carom board and purchase of carom board on 7-3-1989 i,e, 6 days before arrival of the appellant in Pakistan. It has rightly held that the material recovered from the appellant was scrupulously dispatched and properly examined by the Chemical Examiner and rightly found to be heroin of commercial grade. It has also rightly held that the omissions referred to above were not material and did not adversely affect the prosecution case. Mrs. Ismat Mehdi had pointed out that the heroin powder was shown to be of brown color in the F.I.R. And Mashirnama and of off-white color in deposition of the Seizing Officer. She, therefore, tried to persuade the Court against the factum of recovery. I find myself unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Niceties like these do not decide the fate of a criminal case. The use of terms 'brown and off-white' for a color do not make any difference when used in relation to heroin powder.
9. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.
' The appellant is in custody and is ordered to be kept in jail to serve out the remaining sentence of imprisonment and fine.