2013 P Cr. L J 196
[Balochistan]
Before Ghulam Mustafa Mengal and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ
Mst. FARHEEN ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE and another ---Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2012, decided on 13th September, 2012.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) ---
----S. 9(c) ---Possession and trafficking of narcotic ---Appr eciation of evidence ---Defence plea
of false implication not proved ---Planting of huge quantity of narcotics not probable ---
Accused -lady was allegedly found in possession of 7 kilograms of charas after police
searched her bag at a checkpoint ---Accused was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court --
-Contentions of accused were that she had been falsely implicated in the case by the police
and managed official witnesses and because of lack of disinterested witnesses, no reliance
could be placed on the eviden ce of police witnesses ---Validity ---Plea of false implication of
accused was belied by the fact that complainant (police official) who prepared the recovery
memo and recovery witness (police official) remained consistent in their statements on
material par ticulars of the prosecution case ---No material discrepancies or contradictions had
been brought on record to shatter credibility of prosecution evidence --- Accused was
arrested on the spot along with the contraband --- Report of Forensic Science
Laboratory was positive ---No mala fide or enmity with the police had been brought on
record ---Such huge quantity of contraband could not be planted by the prosecution against
the accused ---Accused had failed to prove her defence plea by producing evidence ---Appeal
was dismissed in circumstances.
Jameel Ramzan for Appellant.
Atiq Ahmed Khan, Additional Prosecutor -General for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th September, 2012.
JUDGMENT
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J. ---This appeal under sectio n 48 of Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is directed against the judgment dated 26th June, 2012 passed
by learned Special Judge, C.N.S. Court, Quetta, in C.N.S. Case No.49 of 2012, whereby he
has convicted the appellant under section 9(c) of Contro l of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000 or in
default thereof to suffer further S.I for two months. Benefit of section 382 -B, Cr.P.C. was
also extended in favour of appellant.
2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 26th February, 2012, F.I.R.
No.24 of 2012, under section 9 -C of C.N.S. Act, 1997 was registered with Police Station,
Kuchlak, Quetta on the Murasila of complainant Asif Ghafoor IP/SHO, stating therein that on
the said date, he along with his subordinate staff namely Muhammad Maqbool, SI/ASHO,
Ajab Khan, ASI and others were on area patrolling. During the course of patrolling they
received spy information that a Mini Wagon bearing Registration No. JE-8180 -Karachi is
coming from Chaman towards Quetta in which two lady passengers are on board having
Charas in their luggage. On receipt of this credible information the complainant laid a Naka
at Jalovgeer, Quetta -Chaman Road and started checking of vehi cles coming from Chaman
side. At about 3 -10 p.m. a Wagon bearing Registration No.JE -8180 -Karachi reached there,
which was stopped and started search of passengers luggage, two ladies having bags in their
laps were alighted from the Wagon. On checking Cha ras was recovered from the bags. On
query they disclosed their names as Farheen widow of Gulraz (appellant) and Azra Parween
wife of Muhammad Raise. On checking the bag blue red in colour appellant five plastic begs
of baked Charas in rod shaped and two pl astic bags having raw Charas were recovered. On
weighing plastic envelope rod shaped found five (5) kilogram each and from two packets raw
Charas found two (2) kilogram; total seven (7) kilogram was taken into possession through
recovery memo; in presence of witnesses. Out of which twenty (20) grams from backed
Charas and ten (10) grams from raw Charas was separated for chemical analyzer, and sealed
in parcel No.1 while the remaining Substance was sealed in Parcel No.2. On the stated
allegations, present F.I.R. was registered and the appellant was arrested.
3. After usual investigation, challan of the ease against the appellant was sent in the
Court of Special Judge, C.N.S. Quetta, and charge was framed on 21st March, 2012, to which
the appellant p leaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. After framing the formal charge, prosecution examined P.W.1 Asif Ghafoor, S.H.O.
complainant, who produced recovery memo; as Exh.P/1 -A and Murasla as Exh.P/1 -B. P.W.2
Ajab Khan, ASI, recovery witness identified his signatures on recovery memo; Exh.P/1 -A.
He also produced vehicle as Art; P/1, Parcel No.2 as Art; P/2. He produced five packets of
backed Charas in rod shaped as Art; P/3, two packets of raw Charas as Art: P/4, beg blue in
colour as Art; P/5 and sample se al as Art; P/6. P.W.3 Muhammad Ashraf, S.I/Investigating
Officer, who produced F.I.R. as Exh.P/3 -A, incomplete challan as Exh.P/3 -B, Chemical
Expert Report as Exh. P/3 -C and complete challan as Exh.P/3 -D. Thereafter, the
prosecution closed its side . The statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. was
recorded wherein she denied to have committed the offence and deposed that she went to
Chaman for shopping. She is innocent and nothing was recovered from her possession. She
neither examined herself on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any
witness in her defence.
5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and
sentenced the appellant as stated above, hence this appe al.
6. We have heard Mr. Jamil Ramzan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
Atiq Ahmed Khan, learned Additional Prosecutor -General.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that appellant has been
falsely implicate d in this case by the police and managed official witnesses, who deposed
falsely against the appellant, therefore, their testimony could not be considered in convicting
her. He further contended that because of lack of disinterested witnesses no reliance c an be
placed on the police witnesses and the impugned judgment is the result of misreading and
non-reading of the evidence available on record, therefore the appellant is entitled to the
benefit of doubt and on acceptance of her appeal sh e may be acquitted of the charge.
8. On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor -General supported the impugned
judgment and submitted that no enmity or mala fide has been pleaded against the police
officials, as such, their testimony is c onfidence -inspiring and the learned trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellant and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court does not
suffer from any illegality, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have considered the argumen ts advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the entire evidence available on record.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in this case is b elied by the statement of Asif Ghafoor, S.H.O.
P.W.1 and Ajab Khan, ASI, P.W.2, who have fully supported each other on material
particulars of the prosecution case. The appellant was arrested on the spot along the
contraband and the report of the F.S.L. al so supports the case of prosecution. In cross -
examination no mala fide or particulars of enmity neither have been alleged nor brought on
record so as to extend its benefit to the appellant P.W.3 Muhammad Ashraf, S.I. Investigating
Officer, who sent the sam ple of Charas to Chemical Examiner, who vide his Report Exh.P/3 -
C, opined it in positive. Neither such huge quantity of contraband can be planted by the
prosecution against the appellant, nor material contradiction or discrepancy has been brought
out on th e record to shatter the credibility of the prosecution evidence. The prosecution
witnesses have fully supported and corroborated its case and the appellant has failed to prove
her defence plea by producing evidence, as such, the trial Court has rightly con victed the
appellant and we do not find any justification to interfere in the well -reasoned judgment of
the learned trial Court.
11. For what has been discussed above, we find no merit or substance in this appeal and
dismiss it.
MWA/89/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.