IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Appeal No D – 35 of 2021

(Karimdad Mengal and another Versus The State)

______________________________________________________________________

1. For orders on office objections at flag “A”

2. For hearing of main case

Before:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar

Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro

Appellants: Karimdad Mengal and Khan Muhammad Brohi

Through M/s Saima Parveen and Sajida Parveen, Advocates.

The State: Through Mr. Muhammad Bilal Bhutto, Special Prosecutor, ANF.

Date of hearing: 29-04-2025

Date of Judgment: 13-05-2025

J U D G M E N T

Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro J.- The instant appeal is directed againstthe judgment dated 03-12-2021 (impugned judgment), passed by the Court of Learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court for Narcotics Shikarpur (Trial Court), in Special Case No.202 of year 2019,Re: “The State Versus Karimdad and others,” emanating out of crime No.08 of 2019of police station ANF Sukkur, for offence punishable under section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 (CNS Act), whereby the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I) for life and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- each, in case of default in payment to further suffer Simple Imprisonment (S.I) for 01 year with benefit available under section 382-B CrPC.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as unfolded in the crime report are that on 23.04.2019 complainant was present on duty at police station ANF Sukkur, where received spy information that Amanullah Brohi resident of Quetta Baluchistan with his accomplices Kareemdad and Khan Muhammad were transporting huge quantity of contraband drugs through a white color Toyota Van Hiace bearing registration No.LIT-6562from Quetta to Sukkur. Spy informed that an immediate action could prevent the smuggling of narcotics. On such information complainant formed raiding party, consisting upon ASI Muddasir, PC Muhammad Azeem, Spy informer and other members/drivers. The party left police station in official vehicles carrying official arms and ammunition vide roznamcha entry No.10 at 1400 hours and proceeded towards pointed place. At about 1440 hours police party reached at main Shikarpur-Sukkur Road near Jamra village and held Nakabandi there. It was about 1500 hours complainant party noticed one white color Toyota Hiace Van coming from Shikarpur side. Police party signaled the vehicle, which stopped there, due to unavailability of private persons, ASI Mudasir and PC Muhammad Azeem were associated as mashirs. Two persons siting in the vehicle were got alighted, on acquaintance driver of the vehicle disclosed his name as Kareemdad s/o of Bijar Khan Mengal r/o Killi Geo Saryab Road Quetta, other person sitting on front seat disclosed his name as Khan Muhammad s/o Dur Muhammad by caste Shawani Brohi r/o Killi Kachei Baig Saryab Road Quetta. On inquiry about Narcotics substances, they avoided but eventually disclosed that Narcotics Substance viz; Charas in 42 packets wasconcealed by them in secrete cavity box in 2^nd last seat of van, and by their own hands pointed out secret cavity box and took out 42 packets. On checking of said packets, it was found that 15 packets were in transparent plastic panni pack, while 27 packets were in foil plastic pack. Each transparent plastic packet was opened and was found containing Charas/Garda. Each transparent plastic packet weighed 1 KG in total 15 KGs, which were sealed with title of ZA ANF in green color nylon bag. Thereafter 27 foil packets were opened which were also found containing double slab patti Charas, each packet weighed 1 Kilogram,total 27 Kilograms, recovered contraband was sealed separately in green color nylon bag with same title. Thereafter police party conducted physical check of vehicle and found registration book and other documents in dashboard of Van. On personal search of accused Kareemdad one mobile phone of Samsung company along with SIM, CNIC and cash of Rs.2500- were secured. Vehicle had engine No.3L3924183 and Chasis No.LH1020010215. Mashrinama of arrest and recovery was prepared by Inspector Zahid Ali on spot in presence of above named mashirs who put their signatures on it after its contents were read over to them. The parcels of Narcotics substance viz; Charas along with seized van, documents, keys and articles recovered from accused persons were taken to police station ANF Sukkur, where complainant lodged FIR against the accused on behalf of State.

3. Investigation took its course, IO recorded statements of witnesses, sent property to Chemical Laboratory for analysis, after completing legal formalities submitted report under section 173 CrPC before Trial Court for disposal of case in accordance with law.

4. Trial Court supplied documents to the appellants and indicted them for charge of offence punishable under section 9 9c) of CNS Act. Appellants claimed trial by denying charge. Prosecution in support of charge examined PW-1 Complainant/I.O Inspector Zahid Ali Channa, PW2 ASI Mudasir, PW3 SIP Arif Lodhi. Thereafter, learned prosecutor closed prosecution evidence. Statements under section 342 CrPC of the appellants/accused were recorded, wherein they denied the charge and professed innocence.

5. Trial Court, after hearing Learned counsels for the parties, convicted the appellants/accused for charge of offence punishable under section 9(c) of CNS Act, 1997 as aforementioned, hence this appeal.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the alleged charas was not recovered from the exclusive possession of appellants, even they were not found available at the place of recovery, as shown; however, the owners of the vehicle, who originally were the transporters of the contraband, were found nabbed by the police, later due to their influence they were released by ANF police. Learned Counsel contended that from record it transpired that Noor ul Haq was owner of vehiclebut he was not arrayed as an accused. Learned counsel further contended that there was material contradiction in prosecution evidence on points of arrest, recovery and place of occurrence. She referred evidence of PW1 Complainant Zahid Ali available at page-50 of the paper book and submitted that complainant admitted in his cross examination that the contraband material lying before the court was not in the shape of charas but it was like mud, she asserted that this admission on the part of complainant supported stance of defense that no contraband was recovered from the possession of appellants. She contended that the spy informer as admitted by the PWs in their evidence was with them at the time of recovery, even then he was not named in the FIR nor examined by the I.O. during investigation. Learned Counsel argued that complainant himself acted as I.O of the case and witnesses of the casewere subordinates to him, therefore, their testimony cannot be safely relied upon to maintain conviction. Despite of advance information and the police station located in the heart of city, not a single private person was invited to witness the recovery proceedings. Learned Counsel questioned the safe custody of contraband material as per FIR it was recovered on 23-04-2019 and it was dispatched to laboratory on 24-04-2019, which was deposited back to malkhana on 06-05-2019; hence, such rotation of the custody of contraband was not explained. She contended that prosecution was burdened to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but they failed thus benefit of doubt ought to be extended in favor appellant and they be acquitted of the charge. In support of their contentions, they placed reliance upon the cases of Muhammad Akram V. the State (2009 SCMR 230), Ameer Zeb V. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), The State through Regional Director ANF V. Imam Bakhsh and others (2018 SCMR 2039), Muhammad Boota V. The State and another (2020 SCMR 196), Khalid Mahmood V. The State and another (2020 P.Cr.L.J 462), Allah Bachayo V. The State (2022 YLR Note 58), Karim Bux and others V. The State and another (2022 P.Cr.L.J Note 115) and Lal Bux alias Lal V. The State (2023 YLR 321).

7. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Bilal Bhutto, Learned Special Prosecutor for ANF, opposed the appeal and submitted that contradictions pointed out by LearnedDefense Counsel were minor in nature and such discrepancies usually occurred due to passage of time, therefore, could not benefit the accused. He contended that prosecution witnesses have deposed in consistent manner over recovery and arrest of accused. He contended that contraband was recovered on 23-04-2019 and on very next day it was handed over to PC Mohammed Qasim for dispatch to Chemical Laboratory. He contended that entire record showing safe custody of contraband and its transportation was produced before Trial Court. He contended that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants, therefore, appeal in hand merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the cases reported as Zafar V. The State (2008 SCMR 1254), Kashif Amir V. The State (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 1052), Zain Ali v. The State (2021 P.Cr.L.J 1002) and Zain Ali V. The State (2023 SCMR 1669).

8. Heard Learned Counsel for parties, examined material available on record with their able assistance.

9. Defense has attacked the impugned judgment, mainly on three grounds, that despite advance information police party did not associate independent persons to witness recovery proceedings, there were material contradictions in prosecution evidence, which were sufficient to discredit prosecution version, and safe custody as well as safe transmission of property to Laboratory for chemical analysis were not established, all these points per defense were required indulgence to reverse the findings of Trial Court. We will deal each of the above points highlighted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants separately:

Non Association of Independent Witnesses in search and seizure:

10. Per Defense, the complainant party despite advance information did not associate any independent witness in particular from public, to further authenticate recovery proceedings; particularly when complainant admitted during cross examination that there were shops and hotels at a distance of 400/500 meters from the place of recovery, as itwere peak hours of the day and place of recovery was a busy highway, where per own admission of prosecution witnesses traffic was flowing, even the spy informer accompanying the raiding party was not shown as witness, which vitiated the recovery proceedings and offended the provisions of section 103 CrPC.

11. There is no denial to the fact that in the present case, all the prosecution witnesses relate to Anti-Narcotics Force, they had an advance information, but such an advance information would not in any manner cast an obligation upon officersof the force to go into public and seek their assistance to witness the recovery proceedings. CNS Act, 1997 is a Special Law it has got an overriding effect, it excludes the applicability of section 103 CrPC in the matters of search, arrest and recovery of Narcotics, section 25 of the CNS Act empowers the members of Force to detect narcotics substance independently. Section 25 reads as under:

25. Mode of making searches and arrest: The provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, except those of section 103, shall mutatis mutandis, apply to all searches and arrests in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of section 20,21, 22 and 23 to all warrants issued and arrests made under these sections.

This provision of law excludes the applicability of section 103 CrPC, Drug peddling is a big business which is run by specialist gangs, the peddlers do such business secretly, if a force saddled with responsibility to control Narcotics related crimes waits for public to come forward and associate them in the search, it may amount to provide an opportunity to offender to escape. The legislation in its wisdom, excluded the applicability of section 103 CrPC, giving more power to the members of force to curb the menace of drugs in the society. The officials of the Force are the competent witnesses and their testimony is as good as that of the other witnesses in the cases relating to recovery of Narcotics. The drug dealers have a strong criminal mind set, they deal narcotics and can easily influence the witnesses associated from public. By inducement and threats criminal gangs involved in narcotics peddling can get the evidence of private witnesses tempered, which will damage the prosecution case. The legislation in its wisdom architected the provisions of CNS, Act to empower and strengthen the members of agencies involved in detecting contraband. If the drug peddlers get benefit of non association of independent witnesses with recovery proceedings than enactment of special law would become a futile exercise. The testimony of officials of Force in any manner is not at lower footing to that of independent witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded under the score that they belong to Police or Anti-Narcotics Force or Excise. The evidence of officials of Force in recovery matters relating to Narcotics is of worth reliance and non-inclusion of independent persons as witnesses of recovery and arrest would not vitiate the conviction unless it is shown that there existed any animosity of the raiding party with the accused charged with the offence or the accused was involved in the case under an act of victimization or in any manner the officials were interested to falsely implicate him.

12. In the present case a huge quantity of Contraband Charas was recovered from the possession of appellants, who belong to Quetta and failed to demonstrate their presence at the place of recovery. They were found in possession of vehicle and led to recovery of Charas form the secret cavities of Vehicle. They did not deny their presence in the vehicle, even in the cross examination they did not put any suggestion from prosecution witnesses that contraband was foisted upon them, but only suggested that they were substituted for the real culprits. Under such circumstances the recovery of contraband cannot be termed doubtful and evidence of the officials of Forcewhich inspired confidencecan be safely relied upon for conviction. There is no animosity of the witnesses with the appellants even such a suggestion has not been given during cross examination, the contentions of Defense therefore loses force in the peculiar circumstances of the instant case. The Honorable Supreme Court inthe cases of Muhammad Azam Versus the State (PLD 1996 SC 67), Muhammad Hanif Versus the State (2003 SCMR 1237), Riaz Ahmed Versus the State (2004 SCMR 988), Nazeer Ahmed Versus the State (2004 SCMR 1361), Muhammad Shah and others Versus The State (PLD 1988 SC 278), Fida Jan Versus The State (2001 SCMR 36), Rasool Bux Versus The State (2005 SCMR 731), Zafar Versus the State (2008 SCMR 1254), Zain Ali Versus The State (2023 SCMR 1669)has adopted a unanimous view that police officials are competent witnesses like other witnesses from public in cases pertaining to recovery of contraband material.

13. In the case of Zain Ali Versus the State reported in 2023 S C M R 1669 Honorable Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:

“As already stated above, the whole case hinges upon the statement of the official witnesses and no independent witness was associated while conducting the search of the vehicle. However, it is well settled that testimonies of the police personnel are required to be treated in the same manner as the testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroborating by the independent witnesses, their testimonies cannot be relied upon. This Court has time and again held that reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases has become judicially recognized fact and there is no way out to consider statement of official witnesses, as no legal bar or restriction has been imposed in such regard. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies, as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. We have minutely scrutinized the statements of the above witnesses and found them to be consistent, cogent and reliable and there is hardly any discrepancy regarding the recovery of narcotics from the vehicle, which was being driven by the appellant. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant could not elicit any material contradiction in their statements so as to discredit their testimony. The prosecution has successfully established its case by further proving that the contraband so recovered from the possession of the appellant was weighed, packed and then sent for chemical examination, which on examination was found to be charas.”

Contradictions in prosecution evidence:

14. Per defense, the prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other on material points viz. place of recovery, mode of recovery and search. It is contended that Spy informer though in company of raiding party was not associated with recovery proceedings. Per complainant Zahid Ali there are no hotels near the place of recovery and they stood about 400/500 meters away from Jamra Stop, per mashir Mudasar Ali he did not know about Jamra Stop, the complainant has not mentioned the description of packets recovered in mashirnama of recovery, per complainant he did not see vehicles plying, per mashir traffic was flowing, per complainant there were photo on foil packets and per mashir he did not remember about any photos on foil packets. The vehicle was owned by Noor ul Haq but he was not prosecuted and in fact the recovery was affected from accused Amanullah but due to his influence he was freed and present appellants were booked as they were poor, could not grease palms of raiding party. The Complainant was highly interested in the case, he himself acted as the Investigation Officer.

15. The contradictions referred hereinabove by Learned Counsel for Appellantsare not material in nature, they do not create any dent in prosecution case, as the witnesses have remained consistent on the material points viz-a-viz place of recovery, mode of recovery and quantity of recovered contraband material. Such contradictions of trivial nature regarding actual sketch of place of incident usually occurred as the witnesses were not permanent residents of place wherefrom recovery was affected, so that they might provide the minute details of place of incident. Both the witnesses unanimously deposed that the accused were intercepted while coming from Shikarpur side and they voluntarily took out contraband from the second last seat of van from a secret cavity, the defense counsel conducted lengthy cross examination from witnesses but failed to shatter their evidence. The contradictions as pointed out do not in any manner bring the prosecution case within the shadow of doubt. Stance of defense that the vehicle belonged to Noor Ul Haq and no action was taken against him is without substance, soon after the recovery of contraband, the vehicle was impounded and investigation officer on next day of recovery sent letters to Motor Registration Authority Quetta for verification of registration record of impounded vehicle. IO also issued notice to the owner of vehicle which was produced on record by him during evidence and available at page 87 of paper book (Exhibit 5 – L). The contention of Learned Defense Counsel that complainant was interested in case as he himself acted as Investigation Officer, needless to say that law does not debar complainant to become investigation officer, the defense has failed to point out any animosity of the complainant with accused persons to believe that he was interested in any manner to seek conviction of the appellants in a huge recovery of contraband. It is settled proposition of law that minor contradictions, inconsistencies, or improvements on trivial matters, which do not hit the prosecution case to its roots, should not be made a ground to reject evidence in its entirety. In forming an opinion about credibility of the witness and to record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence, marginal variations in the statement of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements or contradictions to vitiate a conviction. Appreciation of evidence requires that the evidence should be evaluated as a whole whether it rings true, or doubtful, keeping in view the discrepancies and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. In the present case evaluation of evidence leads to a firm conclusion that the prosecution witnesses of recovery remained consistent and firm on each and every material point and their testimony could not be shaken during cross examination. There appears no misreading or nonreading of the evidence on the part of Trial Court warranting interference by this Court.

16. Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Nazir Ahmed Versus the State reported in 2023 SCMR 1299 has been pleased to hold as under:

“This Court in a number of cases has held that testimony of official witnesses is as good as any other private witness unless it is proved that they have animus against the accused. However, no such thing could be brought on record by the petitioner in this case. This Court has time and again held that reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases has become judicially recognized fact and there is no way out to consider statements of official witnesses, as no legal bar or restriction has been imposed in this regard. Police/official witnesses are as good witnesses and could be relied upon, if their testimonies remain un-shattered during cross-examination. The parcel containing sample of recovered explosive substance was sent to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory and according to the report of the Agency the sample contained explosive material. During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel contended that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses but on our specific query he could not point out any major contradiction, which could shatter the case of the prosecution. It is a well settled proposition of law that as long as the material aspects of the evidence have a ring of truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in the evidence. The test is whether the evidence of a witness inspires confidence. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, the defense can take advantage of the same. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not affecting the material considerations of the prosecution case ought not to prompt the courts to reject evidence in its entirety. Such minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored.”

Safe Custody of recovered Contraband and Safe Transmission to Laboratory

17. Learned Defense Counsel contended that recovery was affected on 23.04.2019 during day time, complainant reached at police station at about 05:00 PM, and contraband material was sent to Chemical Laboratory on 24.04.2019 by the hands of PC Mohammed Qasim.The prosecution failed to establish safe custody of recovered contraband, particularly when complainant PW Zahid Ali deposed that one bag of charas containing 15 packets is not charas because it neither contained packets nor any transparent plastic and it is only mud type, PC Mohammed Qasim was not examined and prosecution failed to demonstrate that recovered contraband was kept in safe custody and safely transmitted to chemical laboratory.

18. Scanning of evidence revealed that the contraband was recovered from the possession of appellants during evening hours and after recovery proceedings ANF party returned back at police station at 05:00 PM, handed over the recovered contraband and other articles to SI Arif Lodhi incharge Malkhana, such an entry No 11 dated 23.04.2019 was maintained in the register 19 at 1730 hours. PW Zahid Ali produced entry No 11 of Register 19 in evidence before Trial Court as exhibit 5–B. On 24.04.2019 the recovered contraband was sent to Chemical Laboratory by hands of PC Mohammed Qasim to Chemical Laboratory and entry No 5 dated 24.04.2019 of register 19 was maintained. PW Zahid Alideposed in detail regarding recovery of contraband, its sealing and transportation to police station and keeping the recovered contraband in safe custody in malkhana of Police Station, dispatch to Chemical Laboratory. So far as PC Mohammed Qasim who delivered the samples to Chemical Laboratory is concerned, his evidence could not be recorded as he passed away and such proof was brought before Trial Court. PW SIP Zahid Alideposed that after recovery of contraband they arrived at police station at 05:00 PM, recorded FIR and handed over the case property to malkhana incharge at 05:30 PM on the same date and on next day early in the morning at about 0845 hours, entire quantity of recovered contraband was dispatched to chemical laboratory for chemical analysis. The Forensic report of samples issued by Chemical Laboratory Sukkur @ Rohri confirmed the prosecution version that contraband articles containing two Kattas duly sealed were received in the laboratory on 24.04.2019,Katta No 1 contained 15 pani packets each having one black brown colour slab and Katta No 2 contained 27 pani packets each having two black brown color slabs. The recovered contraband after analysis was opined to be charas. Incharge of malkhana PW Arif Lodhi was examined before Trial Court who supported prosecution version regarding safe custody of contraband material and its dispatch to chemical laboratory, he produced on record relevant entries of Book No 19 for depositing the material in malkhana, its dispatch to laboratory and receiving back the property in malkhana from laboratory after its analysis. Defense did not confront this witness regarding safe custody and transmission of property during cross examination. As far as the issue regarding change of shape of contraband charas and unavailability of wrappers at the time of recording of evidence was concerned, PW Zahid Ali fully explained the reason of change in shape of case property, as the contraband was recovered in summer season and evidence of witness was also recorded after about 18 months, in between said period two peak summer seasons passed wherein the mercury went as high as 50 degree Celsius in this part of the country, due to which the color and shape of Charas changed. The Defense believed the statement of Complainant / IO Zahid Ali true and did not move any application for forensic examination of property produced before Trial Court. Even otherwise entire property was sent for chemical analysis and report confirmed that it was charas. The chain of events from recovery to dispatch of property for chemical analysis fully supported the stance of prosecution for safe custody and safe transmission to chemical laboratory. The samples were sent to chemical laboratory with no delay, as the property was recovered at the closing office hours and sent for chemical analysis early in the morning next day. Defense has failed to make out any case of slightest doubt even that property was not kept under safe custody and not safely transmitted to laboratory for analysis.

19. Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Hasrat Khan Versus the State reported in P L D 2024 Supreme Court 911 has been pleased to hold as under:

“5. We note that the safe custody and safe transmission of the sample of the recovered substance from the local Police Station to the Laboratory has been proved by the prosecution before the trial court. Subsequently, a report received from the Laboratory in that respect was in the positive. The witnesses of the recovery were public servants who had made consistent statements against the Petitioner, and they had no background of ill-will against the Petitioner, to falsely implicate him. Both the courts below had undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the evidence available on the record and had then concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt of the Petitioner having been proved to the hilt and upon our own independent evaluation of the evidence we have not been able to take a view of the mater different from that concurrently taken by the courts below.”

20. In the case of Naheed Akhtar Versus the State reported in 2022 S C M R 1784 Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, has held as under:

“4. As far as the points noted in the leave granting order are concerned, we may observe that acquittal of the appellant in case FIR No.226/14 has no bearing on the merits of this case. Recovery of narcotics in this case was proved by one Asim Rasheed as PW.3 and the said recovery was also testified by Muhammad Nazir S.I. and non-production of other recovery witness namely Zaheer Nawaz ASI has no bearing on the merits of this case and similarly the conviction of said Zaheer Nawaz in some other case of narcotics, in absence of any material on the record, will not be sufficient to create any sort of doubt in this case. Similarly no such major contradictions in the testimonies of PWs.3 and 5 were pointed out. The forensic report regarding narcotics in this case is strictly in accordance with the principles enunciated in the cases of State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) and Khair-ul-Bashar v. The State (2019 SCMR 930).”

21. The prosecution evidence has remained consistent on all the material points of recovery, non-association of private evidence in no way benefitted the defense, the safe custody of property was fully established, even the defense did not deny the recovery of contraband, but they claimed substitution of real accused with appellants, for which they did not lead any evidence in defense to say that they were involved in the case under malicious considerations. The initial burden to prove the case was fully discharged by prosecution, and shifted to appellants in terms of section 29 of CNS Act 1997. Huge quantity of Narcotics was recovered from the van which was under the control and exclusive possession of the appellants, they were inhabitants of Quetta and travelling therefrom, they failed to demonstrate their presence at the place of recovery which is about 500 Kilometers away from their place of abode. The appellants even did not deny their presence at the place of incident and recovery of vehicle from their possession. There is no animosity of the prosecution witnesses to falsely involve appellants in huge quantity of contraband. The menace of drugs has reached to an alarming situation in our country, the reports that drugs have become a fashion choice amongst the students hurts, it is threat to society as a whole and affecting many families. It is high time to fix the drug peddlers and curb this menace by collective efforts to save our future generations.

22. Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Faisal Shahzad Versus the State reported in 2022 S C M R 905 has held as under:

“9. This Court has time and again held that the menace of drugs is increasing day by day dueto various reasons. It is very disheartening to observe that every day there are many reports of drug peddlers being caught with drugs. This menace is a great threat to a peaceful society and is affecting many lives especially the youngsters, therefore, immediate steps are required to be taken to curb these nefarious activities. The proceeds of narcotics are largely utilized in anti-state/terrorist activities, which this country is facing since decades. When the prosecution is able to prove its case on its salient features then un-necessary technicalities should not be allowed to hamper the very purpose of the law on the subject. The close analysis of the whole prosecution evidence i.e. the recovery of huge quantity of narcotics, the happening of the occurrence in broad daylight, separating the samples from each packet in a prescribed manner and sending them to the Chemical Examiner, report of the Chemical Examiner and the statements of the prosecution witnesses when evaluated conjointly leaves no room to come to a different conclusion than what has been arrived at by the learned courts below.

23. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellants in this regard is distinguishable as in the cases referred to by Learned Counsel either the safe custody and transmission from 'maalkhana' to chemical examiner was not established. The police constable who delivered the sealed samples to the Chemical Examiner was not examined, though in this case too PC Mohammed Qasim has not been examined but for a reason beyond the control of human being that he passed away during trial, or the officer of the Anti Narcotics Force through whom the sample was dispatched to the Chemical Examiner was not produced in evidence but as discussed above the same is not the case here, the PW Arif Lodhi ANF officer who kept the charas in malkhana and dispatched it to chemical laboratory was examined and he described minutely the safe custody of recovered contraband.

We will appreciate the assistance rendered by Learned Counsel for the Appellants Ms. Saima Parveen, being a young lawyer she assisted this Court in an excellent manner.

24. For what has been discussed herein above, We are of the Considered view that the prosecution has fully established its case against appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, Learned Defense Counsel has failed to point out any illegality, infirmityor any misreading or nonreading of evidence warranting interference of this Court, consequently this appeal fails, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Learned Trial Court is maintained and appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

Asghar/P.A