' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--Since the same facts and grounds are involved in the above titled Criminal appeals those are being disposed of by single judgment.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 11-7-2001 at about 2-10 a.m. F.I.R. Was lodged at Police Station Sakhipir by complainant Syed Hassan Ali Abidi stating that on 10-7-2001 vide Roznamcha Entry No.38 he alongwith his subordinate staff left police station for snap checking. At about 12 O'clock while they were returning to police station through Kali Mori Chowk Road; and when they reached at Chona Bhatti Chowk they saw one Rickshaw coming from the opposite side with two passengers sitting therein. One person who appeared to be Afghani alighted from the Rickshaw holding shopper in hand, and started running. The police apprehended three accused persons, and recovered 1110 grams of heroin powder and 1050 grams of opium from the possession of Wahid Gul, two kilograms of heroin powder from the possession of accused Abdul Sattar, bedsides arms while 1500 grams of heroin powder was recovered from the possession of accused Ghulam Rasool.
The property was sealed separately on the spot and Mashirnama of arrest of accused and recovery were prepared. Subsequently the accused and the property were brought at the police station and separate F.I.Rs. Were registered against the accused persons being Crimes Nos.40, 41, and 43 of 2001 respectively.
3. On being sent up to stand trial, the accused were individually confronted with the charges, to which they refused to accept. Thus the accused were separately proceeded with.
4. In order to prove their case prosecution examined complainant S.I.-P., Syed Hassan Ali Abidi and recovery Mashir S.I.P., Noorul Qamar in each case reportedly. They produced memo. Of arrest and recovery. F.I.R. And report of Chemical Examiner, Co-mashir of the recovery namely Mukhtiar Ahmed was however, given up by the prosecution.
5. On closure of the prosecution side statement of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. The appellant also examined witnesses in their defence.
6. On the basis of the evidence adduced learned trial Court convicted both the appellants under section 9(c) of the CNS Act and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000. In case of default each of the appellant was to suffer S.I. For six months more.
Both the appellants were, however, granted benefit as provided under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
7. Being aggrieved of the judgments passed by the trial Court the appellants have preferred these appeals.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as State.
9. It was mainly contended on behalf of the appellants that the case of the prosecution was based on entry in the Roznamcha, which was not produced before the trial Court as such the entire prosecution story fell on the ground and was rendered dubious. It was next contended that the private Mashir was given up by the prosecution thus it created a dent in the case of the prosecution.
10. Conversely, it was contended on behalf of the State that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt by adducing cogent evidence and that the judgment of the trial Court was unexceptionable.
11. We have considered the arguments addressed at the bar and scanned the evidence available on record.
12. Regarding the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant suffice it to say that no objection was raised during the trial about the non-production of the Roznamcha entry.
Mere non-production of Roznamcha entry would not by itself render the prosecution story doubtful if otherwise the evidence is reliable and no such objection for non-production of Roznamcha is raised at the proper stage. Neither any such suggestion was made nor is there anything on record to suggest that the police did not leave the police station or that it left the police station without making such entry. More particularly when the entry number has been incorporated in the F.I.R.
Itself. At this juncture such objection seems to have been taken as an afterthought which has to be simply discarded.
13. So far as the contention with regard to giving up of private Mashirs is concerned, the prosecution cannot be forced to bring all the witnesses for evidence. And that giving up of a prosecution witness, in all the circumstances, was not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The only requirement is that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused. It is for the prosecution to produce the witnesses as deemed fit and proper as to establish the accusation, it is not the quantity but the quality of the evidence. Admittedly there were two Mashirs of recovery out of which one Mashir namely Noorul Qamar was produced in evidence, said witness fully supported the case of the prosecution.
14. We have scanned the entire evidence with the able assistance of learned counsel for the appellants but no material contradiction could be pointed out by him. The evidence led by the prosecution is consistent and confidence inspiring. No justifiable or probable cause was shown for false implication of the present appellant in the case as claimed.
15. In the given circumstances, we are of the view that the two judgments passed by the trial Court are unexceptionable and need not interference.
16. For these reasons the appeals were dismissed by short orders passed on 21-1-2004.