2023 M L D 746
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
ROZI KHAN alias CHAKO alias DOLAT KHAN ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2022, decided on 17th August, 2022.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) ---
----S. 9(c) ---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 6---
Possession of narcotics ---Scope ---Appellant assailed his conviction under S. 9(c) of the
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 199 7---Deposition of witnesses was consistent and in
line on the point of apprehending the accused near the graveyard after an attempt by him to
flee, search of his person, recovery of hashish weighing 1020 grams and taking sample of 05 grams in two parcels ---Accused was identified by the witnesses ---Contention of accused that
his name was different was of no help--- No flaw from the point of recovery of charas,
making parcels thereof, keeping it in Malkhana and then transmitting the same to Forensic Laboratory for analysis was found, as such, an unbroken chain was formed---Tests applied
and protocols (applied to carry out the test and result of the test) were duly mentioned in the report of Forensic Laboratory, therefore, the report was comprehensive and conclusive ---
Impugned judgment did not call for interference ---Appeal was dismissed.
Ikramullah's case 2015 SCMR 1002; Imam Bakhsh's case 2018 SCMR 2039 and
Khairul Bashar's case 2019 SCMR 930 distinguished.
Saifullah Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 2005; Qaiser Javed Khan v. The State PLD
2020 SC 57; Liaquat Ali v. The State 2022 SCMR 1097 and Muhammad Rasool v. The State 2022 SCMR 1145 ref.
Rafiullah Barrech for Appellant.
Yahya Baloch, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.
Date of hearing: 4th August, 2022.
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J. ---Calls in question the veracity and legality of
the judgment dated 20th April 2022 ("impugned judgment") handed down by learned Special
Judge of the court constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997- Sessions
Judge, Pishin ("Trial Court"), whereby appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ("Act of 1997") and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year RI with fine of Rs.15000/ - or in default of f ine to further undergo
fifteen (15) days' SI, extending benefit of Section 382- B of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
("Cr.P.C.") in a case bearing FIR No.118/2021 (Ex.P/4- A) registered with Police Station
City, Pishin for the appellant having been found in po ssession of 1020 grams of baked
charas.
2. Crime report (Ex.P/1 -A) lodged by complainant Muhammad Idrees SI (PW -1) reveals
that on 30th July 2021, he was on patrol duty along with other police contingent and when they reached near Old Graveyard at about 9: 00 p.m., a person on seeing them tried to run
away, who was apprehended and known to be Rozi Khan alias Chako; he was found to be in possession of 1020 grams of baked charas, whereof 05 gram was separated as sample, secured through two separate parcels bearing Parcel No.1 and Parcel No.1 -A respectively.
Samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory ("FSL"), whereof report (Ex.P/4- C) was
issued by Federal Analyst, Government of Balochistan, Quetta.
3. After necessary investigation, the appellant was reman ded to judicial custody and was
sent up to face the trial before the Trial Court. In order to establish the case, the prosecution produced as many as four witnesses, whereafter on close of the prosecution side, the appellant refuted the allegations put for ward by the prosecution as contemplated under
section 342, Cr.P.C. as well as stepped into the witness box in his defence.
Conclusion of the trial, followed in a verdict of guilt in the above terms.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contende d that the prosecution has failed
to establish safe transmission of the Narcotics, offending Rule 6 of the Act of 1997 (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001 ("Analyst Rules of 2001"). He maintained that there are material contradictions, which were overlooked b y the Trial Court, which makes the
impugned judgment liable to set aside. Added that name of the appellant is Daulat Khan son of Abdullah instead of Rozi Khan alias Chako son of Gul Muhammad. Adversely, learned APG controverted the contentions so put forth by learned counsel for the appellant and urged
that none of the provisions referred to by him have been violated while making recovery of the narcotics. He supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the same does not suffer from any infirmity, ill egality or misleading of evidence, thus, the appeal merits
dismissal.
5. Case of prosecution hinges upon the testimony of seizing officer Muhammad Idrees
SI (PW -1), Shaukat Ali HC (PW -2), recovery witness of the memo (Ex.P/1- A) who produced
contrabands contained in parcel No.1- A as (Art.P/1), sample of seal (Art.P/2) and plastic
sack containing contraband hashish (Art.P/3). The deposition of both the said witnesses are consi stent and in line on the point of apprehending the appellant near the graveyard after an
attempt by him to flee, search of his person, recovery of hashish weighing 1020 grams taking sample of 05 gram in parcels Nos.1 and 2 respectively. In one breath, both of them, while
corroborating each other identified the person to be Rozi Khan as per them told by appellant -
convict and rightly identifying him in the court to be the person from whom the contrabands
were recovered. In such circumstances, the plea of the appellant that his name is Daulat son of Abdullah and not Rozi Khan alias Chako son of Gul Muhammad is of no help. The statements of PWs -1 and 2 have been analyzed with the statement of Muhammad Naseem SI
(PW -4) who denied the name of appellant to be Daula t son of Abdullah. Moreso, after
identifying the appellant in the court to be the same person from whom charas was
recovered, the name itself loses significance. Appellant has filed instant appeal, showing his
name as Rozi Khan alias Chako as well. Baz Muhammad ASI (PW- 3) stated to be on duty on
the fateful evening, discharging duty as Head Moharrar; he deposed that Muhammad Naseem, SI (PW- 4) I.O came to his office and handed over the said two parcels relating to
contraband and sample respectively, whereof entries were made in the register bearing No.19 of Malkhana. He was cross -examined but nothing beneficial could be extracted in favour of
the appellant. Muhammad Naseem SI (PW- 4) I.O of the case testified, corroborating
statement of Baz Muhammad ASI (PW -3) regarding handing over the sealed parcels, keeping
the same in the safe custody in Malkhana and further transmitting the parcel of the sample to FSL by him. Scanning the evidence from various angles, the events narrated has persuaded us to believe that th ere is no flaw from the point of recovery of charas, making parcels
thereof, keeping it in Malkhana and then transmitting the same to FSL for analysis in an unbroken chain of transmission by seizing officer to I.O, to Head Moharrar (PW -3) and
onward transm ission to the FSL by I.O (PW -4).
6. We are mindful of the judgments rendered by the apex Court in "Ikramullah's case"
(2015 SCMR 1002), "Imam Bakhsh's case" (2018 SCMR 2039) and "Khairul Bashar's case" (2019 SCMR 930). The facts and circumstances of the ca ses ibid are altogether away from
the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In those cases, the reports were found to be
inconclusive for not adhering to the protocols of the test applied, frustrating the very purpose and object of the act and Rule 6 of the Analyst Rules of 2001. Whereas, in the instant case, the test applied, protocols (applied to carry out the test and result of the test) finds mention in the FSL report (Ex.P/4- C) and as such the report in hand of the instant case being in
accordance with the directives of the protocols mentioned in the judgments ibid in letter and spirit have been followed, making the FSL report (Ex.P/4- C) a comprehensive and
conclusive. In this regard we would like to refer to the judgment of "Saifullah Khan v. T he
State", (2021 SCMR 2005), "Qaiser Javed Khan v. The State", (PLD 2020 SC 57) "Liaquat Ali v. The State", (2022 SCMR 1097) and "Muhammad Rasool v. The State", 2022 SCMR 1145).
7. Aftermath of the above discussion is that the prosecution witnesses have be en found
by us to be consistent and trustworthy and confidence inspiring, which is affirmed by the FSL report (Ex.P/4 -C) to be narcotics drug without shadow of any doubt and, as such, the
verdict of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Judge has been found by us to be based on proper appraisal of the evidence, suffering from no infirmity or misreading of the evidence, calling no interference at all and as such the impugned judgment is hereby maintained.
The appeal having been found to be devoid of merits is dismissed.
The appellant is on bail. He be taken into custody forthwith and be shifted to District
Jail, Quetta to serve out his remaining sentence. In case he is not arrested, perpetual warrants
against him be issued and executed through concerned pol ice station.
SA/130/Bal. Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.