GHULAM HUSSAIN vs STATE

Kazim Ali Malik.--This is an appeal against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs, 50,000/- recorded by the learned Special Judge, CNSA, Texila District Rawalpindi against Ghulam Hussain, appellant in case FIR No, 528 dated 14.09.1998 registered with Police Station, Texila, District Rawalpindi under Section 9-C of the Control. of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.09.1998 at 3.00 p.m. the Police apprehended Ghulam Hussain, appellant, while driving a Car No, PRN No, 4917 near Check Post Margallah within the area of Police Station, Texila. On search of the vehicle .12 kg charas was recovered from the secret cell of the patrol tank. After seizure of the charas and completion of investigation the appellant was challaned to Court.

3. At the inception of the trial, the accused was charged under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for having found in possession of .12 kg charas, to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution examined seven PWs in all. Abdul Razzaq, Excise. Constable, PW.1, was member of the raiding party, which apprehended the appellant. He attested the recovery memo Ex.PA by means of which the recovered charas had been seized. Abdul Ghafoor, PW.2, drafted the formal FIR Ex.PC/1. Muhammad. Riaz, Muharer, PW.3 kept the sealed parcel of charas in Store of case property intact and handed over the sample of charas to Muhammad Afzal, Constable, PW.5 intact, who passed on to the office of Chemical Examiner intact. Temoor Alam Sumbal, Excise inspector, PW.4 apprehended the accused and seized the charas. Abbas Khan, Record Keeper, Registration Authority Peshawar entered the Witness Box as PW.6 and deposed that as per record of Registration Authority the car from which the charas had been recovered was owned by one Gul-i- Zia not an accused or PW. Muhammad Amir, SI, FW.7 proved the investigation.

5. In his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. the appellant denied each and every piece of the prosecution evidence put to him. In an answer to a question as to why this case against him, the appellant stated that he was involved falsely as he grappled with the complainant at the relevant time. No witness was examined in defence.

6. The learned counsel for appellant contended that as per the prosecution case 58 sleepers of charas weighing 12 kg had been recovered, but only one packet was sent for chemical analysis. He further argued that in absence of chemical analysis of each and every packet/ sleeper, it was not proved on the file that every packet/sleeper was of charas. Reliance was placed on the case of Waris Khan and 2 others Vs. State (2006 S.C.M.R 1051).

7. We have minutely examined the evidence in the light of the contention and would say that the same is not receiving support from the record, it is manifest from the FIR, recovery memo and the statement of the Inspector at trial that a small quantity of charas had been separated from each and every sleeper and sample weighing 100 grams of the recovered material had been prepared and got analyzed chemically. In this view of the matter, the precedent case is of no avail to the appellant.

8. The learned counsel assailed the testimony of the Excise and Police officials with the plea that as per the prosecution case the appellant was apprehended while driving a car loaded with charas on highway and, therefore, it was must for the Investigator to associate some one from the public with the recovery proceedings. We are not in agreement with this contention of the learned counsel for the simple reason that it is a question of common knowledge and is a ground reality that no one from the public wants to invite trouble by deposing against a drug pusher facing trial on a charge punishable with death or life imprisonment. Furthermore, it has been laid down time and again by the superior Courts that the Police officials are as good witnesses as any one else can be.

Mere self assertion of the appellant, which he put forward for the first time at trial while making his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. that he grappled with the complainant officer would not demolish the prosecution case.

9. The learned counsel half heartedly argued that the charas had been planted upon the appellant. This contention is also not receiving support from the record or attending circumstances of the case. It was not possible for the Officials of the Police and the Excise Department to plant .12 kg charas against the appellant against whom they had no ill-will.

10.The PWs deposed with one voice that the appellant while driving a car was apprehended and .12 kg charas was recovered from a secret cell of the car in possession and control of the appellant.

All the PWs remained consistent while deposing about the mode, manner of apprehension of the appellant and seizure of the charas. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant on the basis of legal, cogent and convincing evidence by means of a detailed and well reasoned judgment. During the course of arguments the learned counsel could not point out any misreading or non-reading of the prosecution evidence.

11.For what has been stated above, we maintain the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and consequently dismiss the appeal.