1. ' FAIZ MUHAMMAD QURESHI, J.--- Appellant abovenamed has challenged through Jail Authorities the judgment dated 30-1-2001, passed by the learned Special Judge for Control of Narcotic Substances, Larkana, whereby she has been convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs,50,000, in case of default appellant/accused to suffer R.I. For six months more. The appellant is also given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. For the period she has remained in jail as undertrial prisoner. Hence this appeal.
2. ' Prosecution story culminating into the present case as gathered from the F.I.R. Lodged by S.I.P.
3. Muhammad Akram Khan on 25-8-1998 at about 5-10 p.m. At Police Station Jacobabad, is that on that day i.e, 25-8-1998 he alongwith his subordinate staff, namely, A.S.-I. Abdullah Awan, P.C. Abdul Jabbar and others left police station in mobile under Roznamcha Entry No,29 at about 3-30 p.m., for patrolling. During the patrolling when they reached at Trikundo (three cornered) Garden, complainant received the spy information that two women are standing on Shikarpur-Jacobabad Road near Sabzi Mandi and both the ladies are in possession of the narcotics. After receiving the above information, complainant went to Police Line, Jacobabad, wherefrom he picked up the Lady Constable Mst. Zarina and thereafter he went to the pointed place and there he saw two ladies standing by the side of the road. Both the ladies were apprehended at the spot. On enquiry, accused disclosed their names as Mst. Waziran (present appellant) and Mst. Zuhran. Lady Constable took the personal search of Mst. Waziran and secured the opium from her possession, which was tied with her body. Lady constable also took the personal search of another accused Mst. Zurhan and secured the Charas from her possession, which was tied with her body. The opium recovered from Mst. Waziran was weighed on the spot, which became eleven and half kilograms.
4. Half kilogram (500 grams) opium was sealed separately as a sample on the spot. The Charas was also weighed on the spot and its weight became twelve and half kilograms and 500 grams Charas was also sealed separately as a sample. The remaining property was also sealed separately then and there. S.I.P. Thereafter, prepared such Mashirnama by nominating A.S.-I. Abdullah and H.C.
5. Imdad Hussain as Mashirs and obtained their signatures on it. The accused and the property, recovered from them, were brought to Police Station where the complainant lodged the F.I.R.
6. Against both the accused. The opium and Charas were also sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination and report.
7. ' After usual investigation, appellant Mst. Waziran and co-accused Mst. Zuhran were challaned before Special Judge, C.N.S., Jacobabad, who separated the case of both the accused vide his order, dated 13-2-1999 and both the cases were received by the trial Court i.e, Special Judge, C.N.S., Larkana, by transfer, for disposal according to law.
8. ' Charge against the appellant/accused Mst. Waziran was framed as Exh.3, to which she pleaded not guilty vide her plea Exh.4 and claimed to be tried.
9. ' During the trial prosecution examined recovery Mashir A.S.-I. Abdullah as Exh.8 who produced Mashirnama as Exh.9, Lady Constable Mst. Zarina as Exh.14 and the complainant S.I.P. Muhammad Akram as Exh.15, who produced F.I.R. And Chemical Examiner's Report as Exhs.15-A and 15-B, respectively. After that the side of the prosecution was closed by the learned D.D.A. Vide statement Exh.16.
10. ' Statement of accused was recorded by the trial Court under section 342, Cr.P.C. As Exh.17, in which the appellant/accused denied the case of the prosecution.
11. ' The learned trial Court formulated the point for determination as under:-- ' No, 1 . Whether on 25-8-1998 at about 4-10 p.m. On Shikarpur Road near Sabzi Market, Jacobabad accused Mst. Waziran Detho was found in possession of 11-1/2 kilograms of opium in presence of Mashirs, as alleged by the prosecution?"
12. ' The learned trial Court, after having gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and other material available on record, passed the judgment in terms as stated above.
13. ' We have heard Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gul Hassan. Solangi, Advocate for the State who has not supported the impugned judgment and has adopted the contentions raised by Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, Advocate for the appellant.
14. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that 11-1/2 kilograms opium has been recovered from the possession of the present appellant Mst. Waziran on 25-8-1998 at 4-10 p.m. From near Auaj/Sabzi Mandi situated on Shikarpur-Jacobabad Main Road in presence of A.S.-I. Abdullah and H.C. Imdad Hussain and such recovery becomes doubtful. He has further contended that on the same day Mst. Zuhran was also arrested alongwith the present appellant and from whose possession 12-1/2 kilograms Charas was recovered and out of 11-1/2 Kgs. Opium 500 grams have been despatched to the expert on 4-9-1998 and so also 500 grams Charas despatched to the expert on the same day and there is delay of 19 days in sending the case property to the expert. He has further contended that the services of the Lady Constable Mst. Zarina were procured by the complainant S.I.P. Muhammad Akram and in her presence such recovery was effected. He has further contended that Entry No,29, dated 25-8-1998 has not been produced by the prosecution before the trial Court and there is no explanation whatsoever with regard to the rest of the quantity recovered from the possession of both the ladies. He has further contended that on spy information police party is said to have gone to the pointed place but they have not picked up two respectable Mashirs of the locality and has submitted that the case is doubtful and prayed for acquittal of the present appellant.
15. ' On the other hand Mr. Gul Hassan Solangi, Advocate for the State has adopted the contentions of Mr. Surahio and has not supported the impugned judgment.
16. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at length and we have also examined very carefully the record and proceedings of the case and other material available on record. Admittedly 11-1/2 Kgs. Of opium is said to have been recovered from the possession of the present appellant on 25-8-1998 and 12-1/2 Kgs. Of Charas from co-accused Mst.
17. Zuhran who was accompanied by the present appellant and such huge quantity of narcotic substance cannot be foisted by police upon the ladies being so costly and this very factor on the contrary leads to inference that the aforenamed lady/appellant is involved in such business alongwith co-accused lady Mst. Zuhran and no enmity has been established by the appellant on her false implication in the case. When asked, as to what enmity has been suggested by the defence against police, Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, Advocate for the appellant replied that she had the enmity with A.S.-I. Juma and at his behest she has been implicated as she is a singer by profession and conceded that no tangible enmity has been established against police and could not reply properly on the query with regard to enmity. As far as the Mashirs A.S.-I. Abdullah and H.C.
18. Imdad Hussain, are concerned on the factum of recovery, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant is shattered on seeing section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 wherein the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, except those of section 103, shall mutatis mutandis, apply, all searches and arrests in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 to all warrants issued and arrests and searches made in these sections and the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Are not applicable. As far as the contention that out of 11-1/2 Kgs. Of opium only 500 grams of opium and out of 12-1/2 Kgs. Charas only 500 grams have been despatched to the expert by police and the entire quantity has not been sent, has got no weight in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to convince us that whether the entire quantity is to be sent to the expert or some of the quantity is to be sent and it was the duty of the learned counsel for the appellant to be prepared on this point but he failed miserably to convince us on this very crucial point and did not assist the Court properly. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Entry No,29 has not been produced, for want of mere technicalities, the accused cannot be acquitted in such a heinous offence and this is a case of narcotics and the aforenamed appellant alongwith another lady has been arrested and huge quantity of opium and Charas has been recovered from their possession. This kind of business is being also run by the ladies and since the narcotics business is going on rampage and by such act of the accused the youth has been spoiled and this kind of cancer is not only spreading amongst boys but so also the same is spreading like cancer amongst the ladies and the involvement of the aforenamed appellant has been proved by the prosecution alongwith the co-accused Mst. Zuhran and such huge quantity cannot be thrust upon the lady accused in absence of tangible, cogent and concrete enmity and that has not been proved by the defence except this that the present applicant had tussle with A.S.-I. Juma and no witness from the locality has been examined by the defence to prove her innocence. The defence counsel before the trial Court has set up no proper defence. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant and we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
19. ' Above are the reasons for our short order dated 30-5-2001. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.