2011 P Cr. L J 384
[Quetta]
Before Ghulam Mustafa Mengal and Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, JJ
LAL MUHAMMAD ---Appel lant
Versus
THE STATE ---Respondent
Criminal (CNS) Appeal No. 175 of 2009, decided on 9th September, 2010.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) ---
----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics ---Appreciation of evidence ---Prosecution proved t hat
the accused was driving the truck carrying 320 Kg of Hashish ---Inference could safely be
drawn that accused was in the knowledge of the narcotic/drug hidden in secret cavities of
the truck ---Contraband recovered would be deemed to be in exclusive posse ssion of the
accused ---In the absence of any ill -will or animosity on the part of the Police party, huge
quantity of hashish could not be expected to have been planted on the accused ---Judgment of
Trial Court was based on correct application of law and pro per evaluation of evidence on
record ---Charge against the accused stood proved --Prosecution succeeded in proving its case
against the accused ---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Muhammad Qahir Shah for Appellant.
Haji Liaquat Ali for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J .---This appeal under section 48 of Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 has been directed against judgment dated 8 -6-2009 passed
by learned Special Judge, C.N.S Court, Quetta , in C.N.S. Case No.25 of 2008, whereby
appellant has been convicted under section 9 -C of C.N.S. Act, 1997 and sentenced to
suffer R.I. for Life with a fine of Rs.1,00,000 or in default thereof to undergo one year
S.I., with benefit of section 382 -B, Cr.P. C.
Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on 21 -2-2008 an F.I.R. No. 30 of 2008 under
section 9 -C, of C.N.S. Act, 1997 was registered with Police Station, Air Port Road Quetta
on the Report/Murasila of Complainant Syed Zahir Shah Kazmi, IP/SHO, P olice Station,
Air Port, Quetta stating therein that today he along with his Subordinate Staff had a
Naka at Baleli Check Post. On receipt of credible information at 3 -00 p.m. a Bedford
Truck bearing Registration No.SI -2890 appeared on the scene coming fro m Chaman side
was stopped and on search of the vehicle 320 packets, weighing 320 kg. Hashish were
recovered from the secret cavities of the truck; sample of 3kg. from each packet was
separated for purposes of Chemical Examination, while remaining Hashish w as sealed in
8 sacks and the same were taken into possession. It was further stated that the person
driving the vehicle on query disclosed his name as Lal Muhammad son of Mewa Khan
Caste Hambi residence of Dera Allah Yar now Kashmirabad, Sariab Road, Quett a.
Thereafter case was registered against him and after completion of investigation Challan
of the case was submitted before the Court of Special Judge CNS, Quetta where charge
was framed and read over to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and c laimed
trial.
At the trial the prosecution in support of its case examined three witnesses in all. On the
close of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C.
wherein he stated that he is innocent and accused person was releas ed by Police and false
case was made against him. The appellant recorded his statement on oath as envisaged
under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He produced D.Ws. Muhammad Alam, Ghulam Sarwar and
Abdul Rahim Shah in his defence. After assessment of evidence, lear ned trial Court, vide
judgment dated 8 -6-2009 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated
above.
We have heard Mr. Qahir Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Liaquat Ali for
the State.
Learned counsel for the appellant cont ended that the appellant has falsely been involved
in this case; that there are two sets of evidence but the defence version was totally
discarded by the learned trial Court, thus the appellant is entitled to grant of benefit of the
same.
On the other ha nd learned State counsel opposed the contentions raised by the appellant's
counsel and supported the impugned judgment and order of the conviction and stated that
the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
The prosecution in order t o prove the apprehension of the appellant and recovery of
contraband material from the secret cavities of the Truck has examined P.W. Syed, Zahir
Shah Kazmi, who had categorically stated that on 21 -2-2008 he along with Mehrab Khan,
IP/ASHO, Shahid Qadeer, ASI, Muhammad Haneef, S.I, Muhammad Zahir, Head
Constable, Umar Hayat, Constable, Azizullah, Driver and Tanveer Ahmad, constable
were on Special Checking at Baleli Check Post, on receipt of spy information a Bedford
Truck bearing Registration No.S.I -2890 w as coming from Chaman side was intercepted
and search was made 320 kg. Hashish was recovered from the secret cavities of the truck,
which was taken into possession vide recovery memo., Exh;P/1 -A and after taking small
pieces from each slab, weighing 3 kg., the same was sealed in Parcel No. 1 for Chemical
Analysis and remaining Hashish was sealed in 8 parcels, which were produced before the
trial Court. Similar statement was made by P.W.2, Shahid Qadeer, ASI, who stated that
on 21 -2-2008 he along with Zahir Shah Kazmi, SHO and other Police official was present
at Baleli Check Post. At about 3 -00 p.m. Truck No.S.I -2890 came from. Chaman side was
stopped and searched, on quarry driver of the truck disclosed his name as Lal Muhammad
son of Mewa Khan. On search o f the vehicle 320 packets of Hashish were recovered from
the secret cavities of the Truck. Witness produced recovery memo; Ex; P/1 -A and
identified his signatures on the same. P.W.3, Ayaz Haider. I.P. appeared and deposed that
on 21 -2-2008 he was posted at Police Station, Air Port Road, Quetta; on the same day on
Murasala of complainant Zahir Shah Kazmi F.I.R Exh.P/3 -A under section 9 -C was
registered. He further deposed that investigation of the case was entrusted to him. He
went to the place of occurrence where the complainant handed over him Parcel Nos.1 to
9, Bedford Truck bearing Registration No.SI -2890 and accused was taken into custody.
He recorded the statement of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. He sent the samples for
Chemical Examination. He r eceived the F. S. L. Report Exh. P/3 -A and after completion
of investigation he handed over the case to the S.H.O, who prepared the Challan Exh.
P/1-C, and he identified the signatures of the S.H.O Zahir Shah Kazmi. Witness also
identified accused present in the Court.
So far as the recovery of 320 kg. backed Charas kept and concealed in the secret' cavities
of the Truck bearing Registration No.SI -2890 being driven by the appellant is concerned
that has been proved by the prosecution and there is no animo sity against the appellant to
falsely implicate him in the commission of offence. The appellant has taken a conflicting
plea in his statement recorded under sections 342 and 340(2) Cr.P.C. He deposed as
under: --
"I am innocent and have been falsely impli cated in this case. I was working with
Rahim Shah, Contractor. I was working with R.C.C. Builders as Mason. On 20 -2-
2008 Contractor Rahim Shah asked me to reach at Baleli Check Post at 3 -00 p.m.
On the next day he went to Baleli Check Post where a Truck wa s parked.
Meanwhile Police came, I was waiting for Contactor. Police arrested me and other
persons who were repairing the Truck and brought us to Police Station,
whereafter, accused persons were released by Police and I was falsely implicated
in this case. I have no concern with the vehicle and recovered material."
The statement of the accused -appellant negates the facts of the case. It is proved that he
was driving the Truck and it can safely be inferred that he was in the knowledge of
presence of Hashis h in the secret cavities of the truck and it would be deemed to be in
exclusive possession of the Hashish recovered from the secret cavities of the Truck, thus
the Prosecution has got sufficient material on the record to connect the appellant with the
comm ission of offence and in absence of any ill -will or animosity on the part of members
of the Police party, such huge quantity of Hashish cannot be expected to be planted on the
appellant. The judgment of trial Court is based on correct application of law an d proper
evaluation of evidence available on record. Thus the charge against the appellant stands
proved.
For what has been discussed above, we find that prosecution has succeeded to prove its
case against the appellant. The witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their
evidence is corroborated by Chemical Analyzer Report (Exh. P/3 -B). There is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this court.
Resultantly, the appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned j udgment is maintained.
A.R.K./102/Q Appeal dismisseThis 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.