JUDGMENT
SHEET.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH
AT SUKKUR.
Special Crl. Appeal No. D – 145 of 2019
Before;
Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput,
Mr. Justice Irshad
Ali Shah
Appellants: 1. Choudhary Muhammad Ashraf s/o Khuda
Bux bycaste Gill.
2. Altaf Hussain son of Khadim Hussain @
Ghulam Hussain bycaste Dodi.
(Now both confined in Central Prison Khairpur)
Through Mr. Moazam Ali Lashari, advocate.
The State: Through Mr.
Syed Sardar Ali Shah, Additional Prosecutor General.
Date of hearing: 24-01-2023.
Date of decision: 26-01-2023.
JUDGMENT
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants were
found transporting 2000 kilograms of charas through their Trailer/Container for
that they were booked and reported upon by police party of PS Excise Circle,
Khairpur. On conclusion of trial, they were convicted under section 9 (C) of
CNS Act, 1997 and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs. 500,000/- each and in default whereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 03
months with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C by
learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC-I/ Special
Judge (CNS), Khairpur vide judgment dated 17-06-2019, which is impugned by the
appellants before this Court by preferring the instant Special Crl. Appeal.
2. It is contended
by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants being innocent have been
involved in this case falsely by the Excise police by substituting them with
the real culprits of the incident and the evidence of the PWs being doubtful in
its character has been believed by learned trial Court without assigning cogent
reasons; however it was further contended by him that he would not press the
disposal of instant Special Crl. Appeal on merits
provided the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to one which they
have already undergone, who even otherwise being aged person(s) including
remission have served out more than 18 years of the sentence.
3. Learned
Additional P.G for the State has sought for dismissal of the instant Special Crl. Appeal by supporting the impugned judgment by
contending that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the
appellants beyond shadow of doubt and they have already been dealt leniently by
learned trial Court by awarding them lesser punishment.
4. Heard
arguments and perused the record.
5. It
is stated by complainant Inspector Ghulam Shabbir that on 19-07-2014
he was intimated by telephonic message that a Trailer/Container containing
Narcotic Substance is coming from Punjab side and would go to Karachi through
Khairpur by night; he shared such information with his staff and then with them
went at the pointed place, there at about 5:15 am, he was again intimated that
the Trailer/Container is coming on the same road; it was found coming; it was
signaled to stop; it was not stopped by its driver; he with his Excise police
party followed it and it was made to stop tactfully at Baberloi
bypass, adjacent to Suzuki showroom; therein were found sitting two drivers;
the first driver disclosed his name to be Choudhry
Muhammad Ashraf while other disclosed his name to be Altaf
Hussain; on search from them were secured Rs. 3500/-
and Rs. 1500/- respectively, beside their driving licenses and registration
book in name of Muhammad Shafi; they were asked to
open the back side door of the Trailer/Container, which they opened and therein
were found secret shelf, it was opened, therein were found two different type
of pockets; those were containing 2000 packets of charas; each one was weighed
to be one kilogram, total 2000 kilograms; those were sealed at the spot under
memo; then the appellants with the recovery so made from them then were taken
to Excise PS Khairpur, there they were booked accordingly; it was further
stated by the complainant that on investigation, he recorded 161 Cr.P.C statements of the PWs and then dispatched the
property to the Chemical Examiner; it was returned by him for the reason that
such huge property could not be kept by him, in safe custody; therefore, from
each packet of charas, was taken out 20 grams of charas, those then were sent
to the Chemical Examiner, who certified them to be charas by issuing such
report. Evidence of the complainant takes support from evidence of PW/mashir ED Abdul Jabbar. They have
stood by their version on all material points with regard to the arrest of the appellants
and recovery of Narcotic Substance from them, which they were found
transporting/possessing through their Trailer/Container being strong
corroboratory piece of evidence, despite lengthy cross examination; as such,
they could not be disbelieved only for the reason that they are police
officials; they indeed were having no
enmity or ill will with the appellants to have involved them in this case
falsely by substituting them with real culprits of the incident. The substitution
of the real culprits with the innocent one; even otherwise is rare phenomenon. The
prosecution obviously has been able to prove its case against the appellants
beyond shadow of doubt with remote chance of foistation of Narcotics Substance
or Trailer/Container upon them, which also takes support from their intention,
when they asked for disposal of their appeal other than merits by reducing the
sentence, which they have already undergone.
6. The offence which the appellant have committed
is entailing the punishment of death and/or life with fine; by awarding the imprisonment
for life with fine, the appellants have already been dealt with leniently by
learned trial Court; therefore legally no further leniency could be extended to
them on point of age, by making departure to the prescribed punishment, which
even otherwise is beyond competence of this Court.
7. In case of Zafar Vs. The
State (2008 SCMR-1254), it has been held by the Honourable Apex
Court that;
“---S.
9(c)---Evidence of police officials---Competence---Police employees are
competent witnesses like any other independent witness and their testimony
cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are police employees”.
8. In
case of Muhammad Noor and others Vs. The State
(2010 SCMR-927), it has been held by the Honourable
Apex court that;
“The
above section expressly cast a duty upon the Court to presume in a trial under
the Act that the accused has committed the offence under the Act unless
contrary is proved. If the case is of possession of narcotic drugs then first
prosecution has to establish the fact that the narcotic drugs were secured from
the possession of the accused then the Court is required to presume that the
accused is guilty unless the accused proves that he was not in possession of
such drugs. Therefore, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that
the accused has some direct relationship with the narcotic drugs or has
otherwise dealt with it. If the prosecution proves the detention of the article
or physical custody of it then the burden of proving that the accused was not
knowingly in possession of the article is upon him. The practical difficulty of
the prosecution to prove something within the exclusive knowledge of the
accused must have made the Legislature think that if the onus is placed on the
prosecution the object of the Act would be frustrated. It does not mean that
the word ‘ possess’ appearing in the section 6 of the
Act does not connote conscious possession. Knowledge is an essential ingredient
of the offence as the word “possess” connotes in the context of section 6 possession with knowledge. The Legislature could not have
intended to mere physical custody without knowledge of an offence, therefore,
the possession must be conscious possession. Nevertheless it is different thing
to say that the prosecution should prove that the accused was knowingly in
possession. It seems to us that by virtue of section 29, the prosecution has
only to show by evidence that the accused has dealt with the narcotic substance
or has physical custody of it or directly concerned with it, unless the accused
proves by preponderance of probability that he did not knowingly or consciously
possess the article. Without such proof the accused will be held guilty by
virtue of section 29, Act 1997. Reliance
is placed on cases of Inder Sain
v. State of Punajb (AIR 1973 SC-2309)”
9. In
case of Kashif Amir Vs. The State (PLD 2010
SC-1052), it has been held by the Honourable Court that;
“---S.
9(c)---Transportation of narcotics---Driver of the vehicle to be
responsible---Person on driving seat of the vehicle shall be held responsible
for transportation of the narcotics, having knowledge of the same, as no
condition or qualification has been made in S.9(6) of the Control of Narcotics
Substances Act, 1997, that the possession should be an exclusive one and can be
joint one with two or more persons---When a person is driving the vehicle, he
is incharge of the same and it would be under his
control and possession, hence whatever articles lying in it would be under his
control and possession”.
10. In view of the facts and
reasons discussed above, it is concluded safely that no case for interference
with the impugned judgment is made out by this Court, by way of instant Special
Crl. Appeal, it is dismissed accordingly.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Nasim/P.A