' Appellant Muhammad Bashir was tried by Mr. Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Special Judge (Customs & Taxation), Karachi, for the offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, who found him guilty for the said offence and vide judgment, dated 3-3-1991 sentenced him to suffer R.I. For five years and to pay a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default to suffer R.I. For six months more. By this appeal filed under section 185(F) of the Customs Act, 1969, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence.
2. On 29-6-1989, while Muhammad Rais Azam Khan, Senior Preventive Officer (SPO) of Pakistan Customs was performing intelligence duties at Customs Examination Hall, Terminal II, Karachi Airport, he received secret information that one passenger, namely, Muhammad Bashir, who was arriving from Dubai by P.I.A. Flight No,PK-222 would make an attempt to smuggle contraband gold into Pakistan. Consequently a strict watch was maintained and the said passenger was spotted, who was asked to declare if he was carrying contraband gold in his baggage, which he denied. Not being satisfied with this declaration, Muhammad Rais Azam Khan, SPO searched the suit-case of the said passenger, who is the present appellant and recovered 7 slabs of gold weighing 70 tolas concealed in two emergency lights. Such inventory was prepared in presence of Mashirs Ashique Javed and Abdul Hameed. The appellant was taken into custody and a notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, was served upon him. On the same day at 6-00 p.m., Muhammad Rais Azam Khan, SPO lodged F.I.R. On behalf of State. After usual investigation the appellant was sent up before Special Judge (Customs & Taxation), Karachi, to stand trial for the said offence.
3. At the trial the prosecution examined Muhammad Rais Azam Khan, SPO (P.W.1), Ashique Javed (P.W.2), Abdul Hameed (P.W.3), Noor Ahmed Panwhar I.O. (P.W.4), and Abdul Razak Tahir (P.W.5).
4. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant admitted the recovery of travel documents and baggage tags from his possession, but disputed the recovery of gold of foreign origin from his possession. The appellant did not step into the witness-box. He also did not examine any witness in his defence.
5. On the assessm ent of evidence available on record, the learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence with which he was charged and convicted him accordingly. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed.
6. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Akmal Wasim, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Fareed- ud-Din, learned counsel for the State. I have also gone through the record of this case carefully.
7. The main argument pressed for my consideration in this appeal is as to whether the uncorroborated testimony of Muhammad Rais Azam Khan, SPO (P.W.1) is sufficient to carry conviction, specially when both the Mashirs of recovery, namely, Ashique Javed (P.W.2), and Abdul Hameed (P.W.3) have turned hostile. Section 159(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, provides that before making a search under section 158, the officer of customs shall call upon two or more persons to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do, and the search shall be made in the presence of such persons and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses. The evidence of Muhammad Riaz Azam Khan, SPO (P.W.1) makes it clear that he had called two Mashirs, namely, Ashique Javed and Abdul Hameed before making the search and in their presence the recovery of gold was made from emergency lights carried by the appellant in his suit-case. Muhammad Rais Azam Khan, SPO (P.W.1) has further testified that the inventory was made in presence of these Mashirs who had signed the same. Both Ashique Javed (P.W.2) and Abdul Hameed (P.W.3) have admitted their signatures on the inventory (Ex.3/A), but they have denied the recovery of gold from emergency lights found in possession of the appellant. This question was considered by the learned Special Judge, who answered it in the following words:- "Learned counsel argued that since both the Mashirs have been declared hostile, therefore, the sole evidence of Seizing Officer is not enough for awarding the conviction. It is true that both the mashirs have been declared hostile. Tampering of evidence is now a common practice. Despite the fact that both the mashirs admitted their signatures over the mashirnama and also admitted to have seen two emergency lights and seven slabs of gold on the spot, yet, they have the courage to deny the factum of recovery in their presence. It is clear from their deposition that they were won over by the accused.
' Under section 134 of Evidence Act, 1872 and as per Article 17(ii)(b) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, in a case like this no particular number of witnesses is required for proving any fact. Even one witness would be sufficient to establish the fact."
8. There is no impediment in law in a conviction being based upon the testimony of a single witness. The only requirement to base conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness is that such evidence should be trustworthy. As a rule witnesses are weighed and not numbered. A Court has to go deeper and discover the quality of evidence. Again the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away simply because a person involved in a heinous offence of smuggling is able to purchase two low paid employees of Civil Aviation Authority, viz. The Mashirs. If any authority on this point is needed the case of Malik Aman v. The State, reported in 1986 SCM R 17, may be cited with advantage, wherein the following observations were made:- "There is no law that deposition of one witness should not be believed and accepted nor it was in contravention of any principle."
9. Admittedly the appellant was a stranger for Muhammad Rais Azam Khan, SPO (P.W.1), who had no reason to implicate him falsely. The learned Special Judge who had the occasion to watch his demeanour found him trustworthy and I see no reason to take a different view.
10. The appellant who was afforded an opportunity to disprove the charge under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Did not step into the witness-box and in view of the rule laid down by the Federal Shariat Court in cases reported as Khalid Iqbal v. The State (1991 PCr.LJ 443), and Javed and another v. The State (1991 PCr.LJ 843) an adverse inference is to be drawn against him.
11. Considering these facts, I have been led to the conclusion that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced. The appeal has got no merits and is accordingly dismissed.