YOUSAF KHAN vs STATE

Appellant Yousaf Khan son of Khan Wazir, aged about 20 years, resident of Village Jerma, Tehsil and District Kohat, has preferred instant Criminal Appeal No, 582/2005 through Superintendent, District Jail, Kohat, to challenge the judgment dated 8.6.2005, recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Kohat, whereby the appellant having been found guilty was convicted under Section 489-C PPC and sentenced to undergo three years R.I. and a fine of Rs, 10,000/- or in default to suffer six months S.I. with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution story in brief is, that on 24.7.2003, at 5.30 a.m., a police party, headed by ASI Shafiullah (PW.3), was present at Gulshan Abad Check Post Kohat in connection with checking, when in the meanwhile, a Flying Coach was sighted coming from Darra side. The Flying Coach was stopped. A young man was found sitting in the Flying Coach in suspicious condition. His personal search led to recovery of seventeen forged currency notes, out of which three were of 100 denomination each, while remaining of 500 denomination each. On asking, the accused disclosed his name Yousaf Khan. The accused was arrested and a case was registered against him in the shape of `murasila', incorporated into FIR No, 347 dated 24.7.2003, under Section 489-B PPC.

3. After complying with legal formalities, the Investigating Officer submitted the challan before the trial Court, where prosecution produced five witnesses, namely, ASI Shaukat Saleem (PW.1), ASI Muhammad Nawaz (PW.2), ASI Shafiullah (PW.3), ASI Fazle Mehmood (PW.4) and Ihsanullah (PW.5)

Assistant Currency Officer, State Bank of Pakistan Peshawar, to prove the charge against the appellant.

4. Appellant was examined under Section 642 Cr.P.C. wherein he repudiated the prosecution allegations against him, professed innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated in the case. He neither appeared as his own witness as required under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in defence.

5. At the conclusion of the trial, learned, trial Court found the prosecution case against the accused to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus the accused was convicted and sentenced as mentioned and detailed above.

6. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Miss Farhana, Advocate attempted to argue that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has unnecessarily relied upon the discrepant, tainted and untrustworthy evidence of prosecution case, which has resulted in complete failure of justice. She also contended that report of the Currency Officer, State Bank of Pakistan Peshawar is not legal and authentic and same should not have been made basis of conviction of the appellant. In this connection, she placed reliance on a case reported as Kala vs. The State (1981 P.Cr.L.J. 472).

7. As against that Syed Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate, representing the State defended the impugned judgment whole heartedly maintaining that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case and their evidence has further been corroborated by the positive report of Assistant Currency Officer, besides the fact that the police officials are as good prosecution witnesses as compared to any other witnesses. To substantiate the contention, reliance was placed on Feroz Shah petitioner vs. The State respondent (2002 P.Cr.L.J. 1470 Peshawar).

8. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on record.

9. The prosecution in order to prove the factum of apprehension of the appellant and recovery of forged currency notes from his possession, has produced ASI Shaukat Salim (PW.1), ASI Muhammad Nawaz (PW.2) and ASI Shafiullah (PW,3). All these witnesses have demonstrated complete unanimity on all important aspects of the case. The appellant has remained unable to point out any discrepancy or infirmity in their statements, so as to create a dent in the prosecution case. They have successfully passed the test of cross examination. There are no material contradictions or discrepancies in their evidence. The inconsistencies referred by the learned appellant's counsel are neither material nor of any consequence and could not be made ground for securing his acquittal. Minor inconsistencies depositions of prosecution witnesses are of inconsequential nature cannot reasonably be considered as ground in disbelieving independent and disinterested witnesses. The evidence of the prosecution is very convincing and the witnesses had no enmity or grudge or motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The police officials are as good prosecution witnesses as compared to any other witness. The submission that compliance of the provisions of Section 103 Cr.P.C. was not made in the case as no too respectable persons of the locality were associated, has no force. The main aim and object of enacting of Section 103 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the search and recovery was conducted honestly and fairly and to exclude any possibility of concoction and transgression. It never meant to disbelieve the statements of officials witnesses in any other circumstance. The submission of the learned appellant's counsel that Ihsanullah (PW.5) Assistant Currency Officer, State Bank of Pakistan was not an expert witness within the meaning of Section 510 Cr.P.C. and his report should not have been relied upon, is equally devoid of force. The objection was not raised during the trial. The report of the Expert Ex. PW.5/1 is in positive and fully supports the prosecution version. The authority cited on behalf of the appellant is distinguishable and proceeds on different facts. It is of no help to the appellant.

10. The conclusion drawn and reasons advanced by the trial Court show fair evaluation of evidence, which is in accordance with settled principle of criminal jurisprudence. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, there is no justification to set aside the same. The appeal