2014 Y L R 1550
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Noor Meskanzai and Muhammad Ejaz Swati, JJ
GHULAM MUSTAFA ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2012, decided on 24th March, 2014.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) ---
----S. 9(c) ---Possessing and trafficking narcotics ---Appreciation of evidence ---Raiding party, on
the pointation of accused, recovered a huge quantity of 'charas' and opium ---One of the
prosecution witnesses, had given the full account of episode and produced 'Marasila' and
disclosure memo, whereas other prosecution witness had corroborated said witness, on each and
every material particular by making a detailed statement ---Prosecution had established the guilt
to the hilt beyond reasona ble doubt ---Neither there was any misreading or non -reading of
evidence, nor could counsel for accused had pointed out the same ---Prosecution witnesses,
inspired confidence; and could not be shaken despite lengthy cross -examination ---Accused had
admitted t hat Anti -Narcotic Force, had got no grudge or ill -will against him ---Not
comprehensible as to why Anti -Narcotic Force, would plant such a huge quantity of narcotic
against accused ---Forensic Science Laboratory's report, had proved the fact that the recover ed
materials were 'charas' and 'opium' ---Sample of 'charas' was 1 -1/2 Kilo grams, which itself fell
under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; and 500 grams if treated to have been
taken from one packet that was 10 Kilograms per packet, that too, attracted the sentence that had
been awarded to accused ---Contention that on the same set of evidence, accused had been
convicted, and his co -accused had been acquitted, was of no avail, because the courts were
required to 'sift the grain from chaff' ---Findings of the Trial Court, were above board and not
liable to be disturbed ---No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out in the impugned
judgment of the Trial Court, as the court after proper appraisal of the evidence and attending
each and eve ry aspect of the case, had rightly found accused guilty ---Counsel for accused,
having failed to make out a case for interference, in the impugned judgment, appeal against said
judgment was dismissed, in circumstances.
Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani for Petitione r.
Shoukat Ali Rakhshani, S.P. (ANF) for the State.
Date hearing: 10th March, 2014.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKAN -ZAI, J. ---Instant appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 5th January, 2012 passed by the Special Judge, Control of Narcotics Substances
Balochistan, Quetta (hereinafter referred to as Special Judge), whereby the appellant was found
guilty under section 9(c) o f the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to
as Act of 1997), as such; convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lacs), or in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year S.I.
However; benefit of section 382 -B, Cr.P.C, was extended in favour of the appellant.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal are that on 9th February, 2011
Complainant Assistant Director ANF, namely Tanveer -ul-Hanif lodged F.I.R. No.01/2011 with
ANF Station, Dalbandin, alleging therein that on the fateful day high ups of the ANF received
information about trafficking of huge quantity of narcotic from Afghanistan via Noshki to
Panjgoor by means of Hino Truck bearing Registration No . TKK -133. On receiving such
information, raiding party headed by the complainant was constituted. The party started
surveillance of Noshki -Ahmed -Wal Road near Batoo Cross. At about 08.00 a.m. they found a
Hino Truck coming from Noshki side. The Truck was signaled to stop. The driver though
stopped the truck but the driver and conductor Sameer tried to escape. However; the raiding
party over powered them. Upon disclosure and pointation of driver Ghulam Mustafa 95 sakes
and 40 bags 'Khaki' were recovered fro m the cavities specially designed in 'Tank' of the said
truck. On checking of 95 sakes and 40 bags 'Khaki' the ANF officials recovered 1900 packets of
'Charas' and in 40 bags `Khaki' Opium weighing 400 kilograms. The ANF official separated
1500 grams 'char as' and 500 grams Opium from the recovered material for chemical analysis;
whereas the remaining 'charas' and Opium were sealed in Parcel No. 2 to 96 and taken into
possession through recovery memo. At the spot the Registration Book and key of the said tru ck
were taken into possession through recovery memo. On recovery of the above referred
contraband items the appellant was arrested and a `marasila' was sent to ANF Station for
registration of the case. After registration of case investigation commenced and on completion of
the same `challan' was submitted before the learned Special Judge, Balochistan, Quetta.
3. On 14th March, 2011 charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and
claimed justice through trial. The prosecution in order to su bstantiate the accusation examined
P.W.1 Assistant Director Tanveer -ul-Haneef, who produced Exh.P/1 -A (Murasila), Exh.P/1 -B
disclosure memo of accused Ghulam Mustafa, P.W.2 Sepoy Muhammad Gulzar, who produced
Exh.P/2 -C, recovery memo of 1900 kilograms 'Cha ras' and 400 kilograms Opium, Exh.P/2 -D
recovery memo of taking into possession, Hino Truck, along with Registration Book P.W.3 Naib
Soobedar, Noor Khan who produced Exh.P/3 -E, Exh.P/3 -F F.I.R., Exh.P/3 -G Map, Exh.P/3 -H
Chemical Analysis Report and Exh.P/3 -J `challan'. Thereafter the appellant was examined under
section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating pieces of evidence appearing against
him. The appellants besides, examining himself on oath as envisaged under section 340(2),
Cr.P.C., a lso produced one D.W in his defence. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties
and evaluating the evidence found the appellant guilty, as such; convicted and sentenced him as
mentioned herein above, hence instant appeal.
4. We have heard the lear ned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their
able assistance. The perusal of record reflects that pursuant to spy information a raiding party
was constituted. Since the particulars of the truck were already known to the raiding party,
therefore, no sooner the truck reached at Batto Cross, the same was signaled to stop. The truck
was stopped by the appellant who tried to make his escape good but was over powered along
with the acquitted accused by the raiding party. Soon after capture t he appellant made a
disclosure which has been produced as Exh.P/1 -B, and on the pointation of appellant the raiding
party recovered a huge quantity of backed "Charas" and Opium. The P.W.1 has given the full
account of episode and produced 'Marasila' Exh.P/ 1-A and disclosure memo Exh.P/1 -B, whereas
the P.W.2 has corroborated P.W.1 on each and every material particular by making a detailed
statement. P.W.2 has produced Exh. P/2 -C, recovery memo of 1900 kilograms 'Charas' and 400
kilograms Opium, Recovery memo of Hino Truck No. TKK 133 and Registration Book Exh.
P/2-D. P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer of the case and produced Exh.P/3 -E, Fard regarding
arrest of appellant and articles recovered during personal search, Exh.P/3 -F F.I.R., Exh.P/3 -G
Map, Exh.P/3 -H Chemical Analysis report and Exh.P/3 -3 `challan'. A deep analysis of the
evidence produced by the prosecution leaves no room for doubt that the prosecution has
established the guilt to the hilt beyond reasonable doubt. Neither there is any misreading or n on-
reading of evidence nor could the learned counsel for the appellant point out the same. The
P.W.s inspire confidence and could not be shaken despite lengthy cross -examination. The
appellant has admitted in his statement before the Court that the ANF has got no grudge or ill -
will against him. Besides, it is incomprehensible why the ANF officials would plant such a huge
quantity of narcotic against the appellant from their own pocket, which too, for no rhyme or
reasons. The FSL report produced as Exh. P/3 -H, proves the fact that the recovered material are
`Charas' and Opium. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that sample has not been
taken from all the material or the samples do not constitute a representative sample, has got no
force for th e reason that sample of `Charas' is 1 -1/2 kilo grams which itself falls under section
9(c) of the Act, 1997 and secondly the 500 grams if treated to have been taken from one packet
that is 10 kilograms per packet, that too, attracts the sentence that has b een awarded. Similarly,
the submission that on the same set of evidence the appellant has been convicted and the co -
accused has been acquitted, is of no avail because the courts are required to 'sift the grain from
chaff'. Applying this principle, the find ings of the trial Court are above the board and not liable
to be disturbed. No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant in the judgment impugned. On the contrary the perusal of record reveals that the trial
Court after proper appraisal of the evidence and attending each and every aspect of the case
rightly found the appellant guilty and sentenced him.
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for
the appellant fail ed to make out a case for interference by us in the judgment impugned, as such;
the appeal is dismissed.
HBT/31/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.