' AJMAL MIAN, J.---The above three appeals are with the leave of this Court and are directed against the judgment, dated 22-12-1988 passed by a Division Bench of the Federal Shariat Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.194/I of 1987, 266/L of 1987 and 311/L of 1987, filed by the present three appellants in the above three appeals against the following convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Special Judge Customs, Lahore, Camp at Rawalpindi, in Special Case No,154/4 of 1986:-- "72. Accordingly I convict all the three accused namely, Hamid Hasnain, Tahir Mahmood Butt and Munawar Hussain under item (8) subsection (i) of section 156 read with section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969 and under Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. I find that there is no mitigating circumstance, in this case. All the three accused are sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment each under section 156(i)(8) read with section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969, and for five years each under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforccment of Hadd) Order, 1979. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. All the three accused are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) each and in default of payment of this amount, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months each. The accused persons shall be entitled to the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C."
' The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Federal Shariat Court by the above judgment dismissed the aforesaid appeals and maintained the above convictions and sentences.
2. The brief facts are that on 14-12-1983 Raza Muhammad Qureshi (P.W.24) smuggled 3-1/2 kgs. Of heroin concealed in the bottom of two suitcases from Islamabad Airport to Norway i.e, one brown and the other green. When he reached at Oslo Airport Norway on 15-12-1983, he was arrested. He was tried and sentenced to 10 years' R.I. By the Oslo Court. During the investigation it was revealed that some other persons from Pakistan were also involved in the smuggling of heroin, namely, inter alia the present three appellants. Mr. Kristan Nicolaisen, Public Prosecutor, Oslo Norway (P.W.19) reported the matter in writing to the Director-General, Federal Investigation Agency, Islamabad (Exh.P.W.19/1). Upon receipt of the same, F.I.R. (Exh.P.W.26/1) was recorded at Special Investigation Unit/F.I.A., Islamabad. After investigation, as many as six challans were submitted inter alia against the present appellants, namely, Challans Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. It may be pertinent to state that Challan No,4 related to the present case, whereas the other challans pertained to other smuggling transactions, which are not the subject-matters of the present appeals and which, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, resulted into acquittal. Be that as it may, the prosecution case in respect of the above Challan No,4 was that in November, 1983, appellant Hamid Hasnain asked Raza Muhammad Qureshi (P.W.24) to go to the house of appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt. It was alleged that when Raza Muhammad Qureshi went there, the above two appellants alongwith Abdullah Jan (absconder)'were present. They told him that he would be given an attache case containing heroin, which he should take to Norway. They offered to pay him Rs,1,00,000, air ticket and $ 1000. It was further alleged that appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt on 6th or 7th December, 1987, sent for Raza Muhammad Qureshi (P.W.24) and gave him at his house two suit-cases. He allegedly told him that one of the two suit-cases of brown colour contained two kgs. Of brown heroin belonged to him, Hamid Hasnain and Abdullah Jan, absconder. He also told him that the second attache case of green colour had 1-1 /2 kgs. Of white heroin, which belonged to appellant Munawar Hussain alias Bobi, who would later on give him direction for its disposal. Appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt also allegedly told the above witness that somebody would pay him 1,20,000 Krowns in Norway. After that, the above witness took the two suit cases containing heroin to his house. Later on, Hamid Hasnain allegedly gave him Rs,30,000 for purchase of air ticket. On 9-12-1983 appellant Munawar Hussain met him and enquired from him if he had been given his attache case by appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt, to which the above witness answered in the affirmative. It was also alleged that appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt then told the above witness that on next Sunday, Monday or Tuesday between 12 noon and 1-00 p.m., a person named Mr. Knut would meet him at Sentrum Cinema, Oslo, and on his scratching head, Mr. Knut would approach him and would address him by remarking "Hullo Ram" and after the confirmation, the witness should give him green colour attache case who would in return pay him 1,20,000 Krowns. It was also alleged that appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt directed the above witness to deliver the brown colour attache case to Muhammad Nawaz in Moss, Norway. It was further alleged that Tahir Mahmood Butt appellant, with the help of a Customs. Officer, got the witness cleared at Islamabad Airport on 14-12-1983 for Oslo Airport in Norway by PIA. It was also alleged that appellant Hamid Hasnain and Abdullah Jan (absconder) were also present at the Car Park at the Airport. On arrival at the Oslo Airport, the Airport Authorities detected the heroin contained in the above suit-cases. They detained the above witness, his wife and a minor daughter. However, subsequently his wife and daughter were released. He was formally arrested and after prosecution, he was convicted and sentenced, as stated above, for 10 years by Oslo Court. His statement was recorded by P.W. Safdar Malik in Oslo Jail, where he identified the voices of Tahir Mahmood Butt and Munawar Hussain alias Bobi when spools were played, which he also identified before the trial Court.
3. After completion of the investigation, the above challans were submitted. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Mukhtar Ahmed, tailor master of appellant Munawar Hussain alias Bobi, who deposed that from his telephone, the above appellant used to make telephone calls outside the country, P.W.2 Muhammad Younas Malik, Manager, U.B.L.
Tehsil Bazar Sialkot, who produced accounts of the appellant Munawar Hussain, P.W.3 Ashfaq Ali, husband of Mrs. Absar Ashfaq, who produced telephone bills containing overseas calls, P.W.4 Muhammad Qadeer, recovery witness from appellant Munawar Hussain to the memo. Of recovery Exh.PG and the documents PF/1 to PF4, P.W.5 Khalid Sher Khan, sub-Manager, Habib Bank Limited, Cantt. Branch, Rawalpindi, where appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt was acting as the Manager, who produced 15 telephone bills containing details of the foreign calls under memo. Exh.PH and copies of telephone bills Exhs.PS/1 to PH/15, P.W.6 Muhammad Alam Bajwa, 2nd Officer, United Bank Limited, Pul Aik Branch, Sialkot, who also brought the statements of account of appellant Munawar Hussain Exhs. PJ/1 to PJ/4 secured under memo. Exh.PJ, P.W.7 Muhammad ljaz of Habib Bank Limited, Cantt.
Branch, Rawalpindi, who was declared as hostile, P.W.8 Mushtaqur Rehman, a private person, who rented out his house at Rawalpindi to appellant Munawar Hussain at Rs,1250 per month, and produced the copies of telephone bills showing foreign calls Exh.PM/1 to PM/13 secured under memo Exh. PN, P.W.9 Sh. Muhammad Din, Handwriting Expert F.IA., Islamabad, who proved diary pages Exhs.Q/1 to Q/12 through report Exh.PBB and chart Exh. PZ and PAA, P.W.10 Fauzia Raza, wife of P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi, who corroborated the statement of her husband, as she had accompanied him from Islamabad to Oslo, P.W.11 Mrs. Absar Ashfaq, who produced copies of certain telephone bills and corroborated the evidence of the other witnesses, P.W.12 Raja Muhammad Suleman, Assistant Director F.IA. Who raided the house of appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt with the permission of the Magistrate Exh.PCC and procured PCC/2 a personal diary Exh.PCC/3 to PCC/16 also personal diary, statement of telephone bills Exh.PE/1 to PE/38 obtained from P.W.11 Mrs. Absar Ashfaq vide memo. Exh.PE he also served section 171 of the Customs Ordinance, 1969, notice Exh.PDD upon appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt, P.W.13 Muhammad Haneef, Inspector F.I.A.
Immigration, Islamabad Airport, who accompanied P.W. Bashir Malik to the office of appellant Hamid Hasnain, Vice-President, Habib Bank Limited, Islamabad, and procured documents PEE/1 to PEE/27 under memo Exh.PEE, P.W.15 Raja Manzoor Elahi, Assistant Director FIA, who took in possession telephone bills Exhs.PH/1 to PH I5 from one Khalid Bashir under memo. Exh.PH. He also accompanied Raja Muhammad Suleman to the house of Tahir Mahmood Butt, P.W.16 Asal Mir, S.I. FIA, who affixed proclamation order of absconsion of Abdullah Jan Exh.P.W.16/1 and submitted report Exh.P.W.16/B, P.W.17 Nadir Shah, who was declared hostile, P.W.18 Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Magistrate Ist Class, Rawalpindi, who issued the search warrants Exh.P.W.18/12 in respect of the house of appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt under order Exh.P.W.18/1, P.W.19 Mr. Kristan Nicolaisen, Public Prosecutor, Oslo Norway, who sent the above report to the Director-General, F.IA. And who produced the photo copy of the judgment of Oslo Court convicting P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi Exh.PW.19/2 and its translated copy Exh.P.W.19/3, P.W.20 Miss Knapperholen Torun, a Customs Officer, who was posted at Oslo Airport on 15-12-1983 when P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi was arrested, P.W.21 Mr. Lars Risan, who was working in the Drug Department in Norway since 1979 and who received information on 15-12-1983 that a Pakistani family would arrive at the Oslo Airport with two suit-cases containing heroin, P.W.22 Mr. Steinar Bragstad, Detective Sargeant, Drugs Squad, Oslo Norway, who taped some telephones of Abid Khan, Muhammad Nawaz, Arshad Shah, Khalid Aslam. With the help of the above tape, the above Muhammad Nawaz, Arshad Shah, Khalid Aslam and Manzoor Hussain were arrested; Mr. Oyvind H. Olsen, an officer at the Norwagien Embassy, Islamabad, in July, 1985, but in 1983, he was posted in the Drug Squad, Oslo, and had arrested P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi at Oslo Airport and so also Mr. Troeber and from whose possession, a note book containing the description of P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi was recovered, which also contained the name of Bobi and the amount of 1,20,000, P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi, who is the main witness, P.W.25 Javed lqbal, brother of P.W.24, who corroborated the latter's evidence, P.W.26 Bashir Ahmad, Director F.IA, Rawalpindi, who upon receipt of complaint Exh.P.W.19/1, recorded F.I.R. Exh.PW26/1, P.W.27 Malik Safdar Ali, Assistant Director, F.IA. Rawalpindi, who went to Norway in connection with the investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses including of P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi and his brother Javed Iqbal.
4. The appellants, in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the commission of offence and alleged that they were falsely implicated as they did not accede to the demand of illegal gratification of the F.IA. Staff.
5. The learned Special Judge Customs, Lahore, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the appellants and awarded to them the above sentences. The appellants' appeals before the Federal Shariat Court also failed as stated hereinabove. Thereupon, they filed petitions for leave to appeal, which were granted as the Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, was of the view that it was a fit case for grant of leave.
6. None appeared for Munawar Hussain alias Bobi appellant in Criminal appeal No,19(S) of 1989. His appeal was also time-barred by 13 days. However, as we were to examine the cases of the other two appellants and as there was a common judgment, we have condoned the delay in the above appeal and have also examined his case on merits.
7. In support of Criminal Appeal No,20(S) of 1989, Mr. Munir Hussain Bhatti, learned counsel for the appellant Hamid Hasnain, has vehemently urged that the prosecution case is founded on the evidence of an accomplice, namely, P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi without corroboration on material particulars and, therefore, the conviction and sentences cannot be sustained. Same was the argument of Qazi Muhammad Salim, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Tahir Mahmood Butt, appellant in Criminal Appeal No,21(S) of 1989. Both have relied upon Illustration (b) of Article 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Order, which corresponds to Illustration (b) of section 114 of the late Evidence Act, 1872, hereinafter referred to as the 'late Act'.
The above Article 129 provides that "The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case."
"The illustration (b) reads as follows:--- "(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars;"
No doubt that the above illustration (b) to above Article 129 of the Order provides that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corrborated in material particulars. However, we may point out that the above illustration of Article 129 of the Order is to be read with Article 16 of the Order, which lays down that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person except in the case of an offence punishable with Hadd and the conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The above Article 16 of the Order corresponds with section 133 of the late Act. In other words, in terms of above Article 16, a conviction can be recorded on the basis of evidence of an accomplice but the Court, as a rule of prudence, seeks corroboration in material particulars.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants have also referred to the case of Abdul Qadir v. The State (PLD 1956 SC 407), the cage of Muhammad Ayub Khuhro v. Pakistan through the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan and 2 others (PLD 1960 SC 237), the case of Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State (PLD 1961 Lah. 880) and the case of Dr. Muhammad Bashir v. The State (PLD 1971 SC 447).
' In the above first case this Court, while construing section 133 of the late Act, disbelieved the evidence of two approvers who were uncle and nephew and pointed out that the standard of corrborative evidence cannot be varied in case of approver being educated and apparently respectable if he is no better than a hired assassin.
' In the second case this Court, while dealing with the evidence of a pardoned accomplice, has observed as under:--- "On the merits apart from the statement of Abdullah Khan who is a pardoned accomplice that the appellant came to his show room on 8th of October and asked him to finalize the deal, there is no other evidence of any act or omission by the appellant subsequent to the promulgation of Regulation No,26. Some witnesses have given evidence that when they negotiated for the purchase of the car from the Car Mart Abdullah Khan told them that the car belonged to Khuhro and could not be sold for less than Rs,60,000, but it cannot possibly be contended that these statements are admissible evidence against the appellant or that they amount to independent corroboration. And in the absence of such corroboration the prosecution took a grave risk in separating the charge under the Hoarding and Blackmarket Order from that under Martial Law Regulation No,26. An officer of the Special Judge's experience could not be unaware that law requires corroboration of an accomplice by `independent evidence'", and that an accomplice's own previous statements or the confession of a co-accused is not corroboration by independent evidence. There was, however, not one word in the judgment on this vital point for the consideration of the confirming authority."
' In the third case, a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan held that conviction cannot be based on evidence of witness without independent corroboration if his status is no better than an accomplice.
' Whereas in the fourth case, this Court while dilating upon the evidentiary value of an approver's evidence, has observed that as a rule of prudence which has almost hardened into a rule of law, it is dangerous to act on the uncorroborated testimony of an approver who is a self-confessed criminal.
9. On the other hand, Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the State, has referred to the case of Jan Muhammad v. The State (1968 PCr.LJ 1625), in which a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan at Karachi, has held that conviction based upon testimony of an accomplice is not illegal in view of section 133 of the late Act.
10. There cannot be any cavil with the submission that it is now well settled proposition of law that the Court, as a rule of prudence, seeks corroboration on material particulars by independent corroborative piece of evidence in case the main witness is an approver or an accomplice, though in terms of Article 16 of the Order which corresponds to section 133 of the late Act, even conviction can be founded on the evidence of an accomplice without any corroboration if the Court is satisfied with the truthfulness of his evidence. In the prsent case, the learned trial Court has convicted the present appellants not solely on the evidence of the accomplice P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi, but has in detail, referred to the corroborative pieces of evidence on material particulars. The Federal Shariat Court also has addressed itself to the above aspect.
11. It was also urged by both the learned counsel that since P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi was neither pardoned under section 337, Cr.P.C. Nor he was discharged under section 494, Cr.P.C., he was not a competent witness even as an accomplice. To reinforce the above submission, reliance was palced by them on the case of Keshav Vasudeo Kortikar v. Emperor (AIR 1935 Bom. 186), in which a Division Bench, while construing sections 337 and 494, Cr.P.C., has inter alia held that Code of Criminal Procedure gives certain power under which the evidence of an accomplice can be made available and that he can be granted conditional pardon by the Magistrate under section 337, Cr.P.C. Or the Public Prosecutor, with the consent of the Magistrate, can withdraw the charge under section 494, Cr.P.C. It has been further held that the above power ought to be exercised where the prosecution considers that the evidence of an accomplice is necessary and the Police have no right to take upon themselves not to charge a person against whom they have evidence because they required him as a witness and that where the above improper course is adopted, the evidence of the accomplice so obtained is entitled to very little weight.
12. On the other hand, Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the State, has referred to the case of Nga Thein Pe v. The King (AIR 1939 Rang. 361), in which a Division Bench of the Rangoon High Court, while referring to illustration (b) of sections 114 and 133 of the late Act, has held that there is nothing improper in tendering an accomplice as a witness apart from any question of pardon and that such a person is a competent witness and there is no irregularity in not sending up for trial every person against whom any suspicion appears to exist. It has been further held that it may on occasion be desirable to include evidence of an accomplice for what it is worth without tendering him a pardon. It has also been held that the question of weight of such a person's evidence is of course important since he will naturally have a strong motive for minimising his own part in any criminal transaction and thus his evidence must be treated with greater caution than that of an established approver.
13. Hafiz SA. Rehman has also again invited our attention to the case of Jan Muhammad v. The State (supra), (relied upon by him) and has pointed out that the learned Judge therein highlighted the factum that the case of Keshav Vasudeo Kortikar v. Emperor (supra) does not lay down any broad proposition contrary to the above provision of section 133 of the late Act.
14. We may observe that there is no doubt that P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi was an accomplice to the commission of the offence which was the subject-matter of prosecution in the present case. However, at the same time, he cannot be equated with an ordinary accomplice, as for the offence in question, he was convicted by Oslo Court, Norway, and was awarded 10 years' R.I.
He was brought to Pakistan on the basis of the request made by the Government of Pakistan while he was serving out the above sentence of 10 years' R.I. As in the absence of his evidence, the present appellants could not have been convicted. He was to be taken back to the prison in Norway for serving out his above remaining sentence. In the above background, in our view, the question of pardoning him under section 337, Cr.P.C. Or discharging him under section 494, Cr.P.C.
Was not very much relevant.
15. The learned counsel for the appellants also with vehemence invited our attention to the factum that P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi, not only before the Court in Oslo but before the trial Court in the present case, made contradictory statements, for example, in his earlier part of deposition he stated that he was class/school fellow with the appellant Hamid Hasnain, he offered to sell his flat of Karachi to Hamid Hasnain, the amount of Rs,30,000 was paid by Hamid Hasnain for the purchase of air ticket, but he was unable to adhere to the above statements when he was cross-examined. It was also pointed out by them that he admitted that he was dismissed from bank's service on account of embezzlement, though originally his version was different. He also admitted the factum that he entered into Germany and Norway without any Visa. He further admitted that he suspected that Hamid Hasnain and Tahir Mahmood Butt caused his dismissal from the bank service.
16. We may observe that we have kept the above facts in mind while considering P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi's evidence. We have examined it with care and caution, but we are satisfied that the conviction of the present appellants, on the basis of the material on record, has been properly recorded by the trial Court and maintained by the Federal Shariat Court.
17. We may observe that the trial Court has thoroughly discussed the evidence and has drawn correct inferences therefrom. However, we may refer the same in brief in respect of each of the appellants.
' The conviction of Munawar Hussain alias Bobi appellant is founded not only on the evidence of P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi but is also corroborated by the following pieces of corroborative evidence:-- ' According to P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi, he was directed to deliver the green colour attache case belonging to Munawar Hussain alias Bobi containing 1-1/2 kilograms of white heroin to a person named Mr. Knut at Sentrum Cinema Oslo between 12-00 noon to 1-00 p.m. On Sunday, Monday or Tuesday. He was further told that he should scratch his head, whereupon Mr. Knut would come to him and would say "Hullo Ram". Upon hearing the above confirmatory remark, he should deliver the above green colour attache case upon receipt of 1,20,000 Krowns. The above Mr. Knut was arrested, his real name was Mr. Gorge Troeber, from him a diary was recovered which contains the description of P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi, the above remark "Hullo Ram" and the name of Munawar Hussain as Bobi, and the figure of the above amount of 1,20,000 Krowns. The above diary is on record which was produced through P.W.23 Mr. Oyvind Oslen, Attache to Royal Norwagian Embassy at Islamabad, who was Detective Inspector, Oslo Drug Squad Police before his above diplomatic assignment.
(ii) Munawar Hussain alias Bobi had taken on rent an annexe of the bungalow from P.W.8 Mushtaqur Rehman, which had telephone bearing No,64257. The above witness has produced the copies of the telephone bills, which inter alia show that Munawar Hussain had phoned some one in Oslo. The above diary recovered from Mr. Knut also indicated that he had above telephone number against the name of Bobi.
(iii) P.W.25 Javed Iqbal, younger brother of P.W.24, besides deposing that P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi had informed his family members including him before leaving for Oslo that the two attache cases belonged to the present appellants, has stated that when he contacted appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt after having come to know that his brother was arrested at Oslo Airport, Tahir Mahmood Butt sent for Munawar Hussain, for whom he waited for some time but when he was going back, he met Munawar Hussain down-stairs who enquired from him, whether he was the brother of Raza Muhammad Qureshi, which he replied in the affirmative. Munawar Hussain would not have come if he would have no connection with the above heroin.
(iv) The diaries which have been recovered from the appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt contained the name of Munawar Hussain alias Bobi and also indicate the payment of certain amounts. Munawar Hussain belongs to Sialkot and, therefore, he could not have any connection with Tahir Mahmood Butt if he would not have been involved in the above transaction.
18. As regards Hamid Hasnain, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No,20(S) of 1989, it may be observed that the testimony of P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.25 Javed Iqbal, who had deposed that he went to the Airport to see off his brother, P.W.24, Raza Muhammad Qureshi, his wife, P.W.10 and their child, and when his brother and the appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt came out after reporting for boarding, they went towards the parking lot to a car in which appellant Hamid Hasnain was sitting with the absconding accused Abdullah Jan and another person. It was urged by Malik Rabnawaz Noon, learned counsel for the above appellant, that P.W.25 in his police statement had not stated so but we have verified from the original record and found that he had stated so. The above appellant had no occasion to go to the Airport alongwith the absconding accused Abdullah Jan if he had no interest in the above heroin. The above piece of evidence, in our view, furnishes the required corroboration, keeping in view that the brown attache case belonged to above three persons, namely, Hamid Hasnain, Tahir Mahmood Butt and the absconding accused Abdullah Jan as per prosecution case.
19. As regards appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt in Criminal Appeal No,21(S) of 1989, it may be stated that there is overwhelming corroborative evidence in the following form:---
(i) The recovery of diary Exh.PCC/1 from him containing the address of one Nawaz at Moss Norway, to whom brown colour attache case was to be given as per direction of the above appellant, according to P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi. The above diary also contains besides the name of Bobi, of Manzoor Hussain who was convicted for smuggling of heroin as per P.W.22 Mr. Steiner Bragstad, whose telephonic conversation in Pakistan was taped by the above witness alongwith the other Pakistanis, namely, Abid Khan, Arshad Shah, Khalid Aslam, who were also convicted and sentenced. The above diary was proved inter alia by P.W.9 Sh. Muhammad Din, handwriting expert, F.IA.
(ii) Telephone bills showing that Tahir Mahmood Butt had phoned persons in Norway.
(iii) P.W.10 Fauzia Raza and P.W.25 Javed Iqbal have deposed that when P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi was going to Oslo, the above appellant also came at the Airport and arranged the clearance of the luggage by the Customs Authorities.
(iv) P.W.11 Mrs. Absar Ashfaq, who has stated that after she was phoned by P.W.10 Fauzia Raza from Oslo that P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi was arrested at the Airport for smuggling heroin, she contacted the appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt, who gave telephone number of one Rashid at Oslo for contacting him to find out about her brother.
(v) C.W. Sheikh Fayyazi, the incharge of Flashmans Hotel, had deposed that the absconding accused Abdullah Jan stayed in their hotel from 1-11-1983 to 7-11-1983. The appellant Tahir Mahmood Butt of Habib Bank Limited told him that Abdullah Jan and his friend were the guests of the bank and they should be allowed discount. The bill produced also indicates that factually discount was given and Habib Bank's name was mentioned.
(vi) There are also spools indicating that the present appellant had conversation with Nawaz at Oslo. Their voices were identified by P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi. Their conversation was taped and recorded by above P.W.22.
20. The learned counsel for the appellants have also urged that since above P.Ws.10, 11 and 25 were related to P.W.24 Raza Muhammad Qureshi, they being interested witnesses, cannot furnish the required corroboration. In this regard, we may observe that simpliciter the factum of relationship inter se between witnesses or between a complainant and witnesses does not make witnesses interested witnesses. An interested witness is a person who has some personal motive to implicate an accused person falsely. In the present case the above witnesses cannot be treated as interested witnesses simpliciter for the reason that they were related to P.W.24, who was not even charged for the offence in Pakistan. They had no motive to implicate the appellants falsely. They seem to be natural witnesses to the facts what they have stated.
We may observe that the Courts cannot expect in cases of smuggling of narcotics, the evidence of the nature, which is generally available in an ordinary criminal case, as the persons who indulge in the above nefarious activities are more organized, affluent and influential and, therefore, generally, they manage to cause dents in the prosecution evidence. In such like cases, which are not only damaging the image of Pakistani nation in the comity of nations, but are making our young generation addicts to narcotic, the Courts' approach should be dynamic and they should overlook technicalities in the larger interest of the country and the public-at-large. The Court is to consider the entire material on record as a whole and if it is convinced that the case is proved, conviction should be recorded.
' In our view, the cases of the above three appellants are interlinked, they have arisen out of one transaction and, therefore, the entire evidence on record in respect of the above three appellants is to be evaluated and considered together.
21. The two Courts below have considered the entire evidence on record and have concluded that the prosecution succeeded in providing the case of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We have also examined the entire evidence on record and we are also of the view that the same is sufficient to sustain the above convictions and sentences against the appellants. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.