BAKHTIAR ALI S/O HAZRAT GUL & ANOTHER (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

N"-.<-.h c-c fz5- Lll ITTIIi]CATD O.[' 'I Il! LL'UT .l rI :ef

, SINDI{ I]IGII COURT

, ;607r-,v *'J .. ,';1?-/ l= si lelD.B.

Cont pos iriott ol llanch L-lV- A^,.

\tJ^ N{4,, t- ,-r A--t--'

^ ->-<> ----O

(u)Jrrdgruent apProvcd for rcporlirg.

Ycs

:M.

4f CI}RlTIFICATE

Ccltilicrl llrrrt l.l)e ,rl(lSnlent r /Ot,lcr is bascr'l upon or cnuuciatc's c.pri-lcip-lc ot larv i /rlccides rr quisti;n of latv $l ch is of first illlprcssion / d st loSllls ncs /

I

ovqt-rulcs/ r,)verscs /t x Plll ins a ltlr:vicus decision.

I tstlikc out whichcvcl is not applicablc.

IilOl'I]:-(i) This slip is only to trc t,scd wlten some aclion is to bo tekcn.

(ii)If (hc slip is uscrl, Ure ilcadcr must rttach it to thc top of lhe llrst pagc of the iudgment.

(iiil Rerdcr mrtst ask the Judgc writing lhc Judgtnent whctbcr tbc Jrrdgnrerit is approv,:d ior reporting.

(ivl 'I'hosc dircctions wltich arc trot to be used should be deletcd' SGP., I(ar.-*L (iii) 1459-5,000'* 6-93--T.S.S.

f>t

I

w lll'. FOlll- -l'l I Ii Ll()N'll Lri lt l(;H c'()tiliT ot'stNt)H K,,\R.'\(',ilt (.r: r\ppsll ru". 1 '/ /20t7.

I ll.rl,irtr,n '\li \,(.) lln/.rt (,trl .\.,rau '1'r d,RLi .- lri ,i l.i.

ll () \'rll.rre Iori;111 ;.1,r11 ,t l)rstrir( l,cirsarrirr.. @-' // ,'l( /7 i'r,..erllr torIlrerl ir ( entlti lril Iirrr..,.lri ih. n#o,,*, i;,,,",".

L Slrcr.\li S,'() \,loirahat Shah. br-casrc S,"cd lt\lr': -/ aY 't l'L r'nlltrall ra\trlanl (jl \/illirr,c Ioliltrr

Iclrsil & I)istlict i)chsarrnl I)r'cscrrtlr Ilerrtierrl ol I r()ltli.r ( ol,)n\ .

\ I!.ll o\ 1l Kiuir(ll.

Not. ( otrtlncrlirr ( L'lltral .lril Kalirchi. Appt'11,1111.

\r t. Its uti

Itr rrst'ctrl()r (lcneral Y l{t spontlerr t

t ritnin.rl Apr.real Untlcr Section 4l0 Cr.l'.C I{./\\ Scc tion -l li ol ( \i5.\ I ()q7

'. ^g the aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned Judgment passed by -..'ned Special Judge-l (CNC) Karachi , on 30-10-2017 in the Special case ',', ,57 I 12014 ( The State V/S Bakhtiyar Ali & Others ), where by Learned

i .r .

I

:' Judge Convicted both Appellants /accused persons and sentenced {

I

-,- -::rellants under Section 6 Punishable under Section 9/C Control of '.r:::.s Substance Act -1997 to Suffer Life lmprisonment wrth benefit of "lli lr PC and fine of Rs.3,00,000/= (Rupees Three Lac) and if Appellant ,,Er:.: - i wrll not deposit the fine lhey Shall suffer more one years in simple - -.ent

Eleage See Pa-qe No.2

TL;-

ry

HICH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No.597 of 2017

Prcsent:

llr. lusti(1, !lultitrrrtttLl Ktritu Klrrur .41/rrt ,\Ir. uslicc Zulfiqur Ali !'4!g!

Appellants 1. Bakhtiar Ali s/o Hazrat Gul Awan

2.Sher Ali s/o Mohabat Shah through Mr. falrangir Rahujo, Aclr,oc.rte

llcsl.rondcrrt/ State through Mr. Multarrnrt'rl lrlbal Arr,.rrr, I)r'l,ulr I'rosecutor Ceneral Sindh.

Date of hearing: 08.04.2020.

Date of Announcement 21.04.2020.

JUDGMENT

MUI{AMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA , I:- Accust,.l llakhtiar.,\li s7o Flazrat Gul Awan and Sher Ali s/ct Mohabat Shah, were tricd by leamcc{ Jurlgt,, Special Court-I (C.N.S.) Karachi in Special Case No.557 of 2014 (.l3tt of 20lZ) arising out of Crime No.596 of 201,1,, u/s.9 (c) Control of Narcotic Substanct,s Act 7997 registered at Ili Jackson, Karachi. After trial vitle jutlgnrcnt tlatttl 30.10.2017, tllc appellants nnnretl trbove rvere couvi<'tct{ unricr Stctiorr 2h5-t I (l) Cr.l).C. for the commissiorr o[ of fence pr-rrrishablc untler St'ction 9 (c) Corrtrt,l ol Narcotics Substance Act, an(l sentenced them t0 untlergr) imprisonm('nt t()r Iit(' each and to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lac rupe,es) each. ln tit'taulr or Payment of fine to further urrclergo simple imprisonmerrt for one year.ancl six mouths each. Ilenefit of Secrion 3U2-B Cr.p.C. w.rs given to the appellants.

2.Being aggrieved alrd dissatisfied b1, the juclgment passed try learuetl Jucige, Special CourFI (C.N.S) Karachi, the aforesaid appeals have Lree.n preferred by the appellants against their convictions.

3.fhe Lrrit'f facts of the pt()sccution c.rser, (lre that on [)1.07.2()12, at aLrL,Lrt 2130 hours, !ilP Nluhamrnarl Irrf.ril, t.ontfrlairrant, ln-cltarge I)olire Pq151, Cu lsha n-t,-Sika ntiera b.rtl r,l I)S l.rckson, Irrdlled his r(,p()rt ()lr lrt,halt ot tlte St.rtt, Jt stating tlrt'r't,in that ht,.rkrng \\,ith his statf i\51-Ahnreti Klrarr, r\51 !\'ali Kh,rrr. I']C-7074 Dalai.i Khan anrl I'(l-12320 Nlir Az.rur Kh,lt, trrr gor,'r.rnntt,nt nrirlrilt, rt't're [,usl in Patrollirrg.rncl tictecliou oI erirtre tlrrty'. Durirrg suLIr p.rtr(,lling

l2 ) 92-8 S-e1 they reached at Massan railway clossing, t:rain road Massan, whcrc theY rvt'rt' busy in Nakabandi. During Nakabandi at about 2000 hours they s.rw tw'tr persons coming by foot having black colour cloth bag in their right hantls acting suspiciously and stoppecl them. On enquiry they discloseel their names 'I hen tluo to to be Bakhtiar Ali s/o Hazrat Cul and Shcr Ali s/o Mohabat Shah none co-operation of private witnesses he citetl ASI-Ahmeci Khan trnc{ ASI-Wali Khan as mashirs and took the personal search of accusetl tsakhtiar Ali arrtl , rtcoverecl bap; from his right hatrtl arrcl checked the sanre an.l fountl th.rt lf packets of He::oin Crystal. u,eighing 13 ',i Kilograms werc recovett'r'i. llt' took further personal search of accusecl Bakhtiar Ali and recoverer,l usetl Mobilt' I'hone Nokia-1616 and cash of Its.2200/-. He then recoveretl black colour trag from the right hancl of accused Sher Ali, checkecl the same antl rt:covert'rl 1l packets of Heroin Crvstal, weighing 12 Kilograms anr.l orr his furtlrt'r scarclt lrt' recovered one useel mobile phone Nokia-503 and cash lts.l2tX)/-. [-lc tlrerl sealed the secured 12 packets heroin and 11 packets hcroirl separatcl\' ()rr tlx' spot. The accused committed the offence punishable U /5-6/9 (c) oi (irntrol ol Nalcotic Substance Act, therefore he arrestecl the accuseel anel Preparecl sucl-r mashirnama of arrest antl recovety on tht'spot TheY therr returnt'tl tr'rck to l\ where lre Itrclged lris report for olfence tJ/3-6/9 (c) Control oi N.rttotic SuLrstances Act against the accusetl. Ihr- inVestigatiorr 0f tltu (.(]5c !\'(r5 conducted bv iJIP-Abdul Chafar Niazi.

I

4.SIP Abdul Ghaffar Niazi, lnvestigation Officer, trfter receipt of lill{ rnashirnama of arrest anci recovery, secured property antl accusetl anrl startt',.I investigation. He along witlr complainant and both trashirs went to tlrc plact'ot incitlent and saw the same on the same r:late on the poirltation ()f c(,t.npl.1irr.'lrt ancl both mashirs ancl prepared such memo. They then returncd lr;rck to I)5, wlrere he recorrled 161 Cr.P.C, st.ltements of IrWs. On O?.07.2(l'17, he deprrsittrl the sealeel parcels of casc property in the office of the cherlical exanrirtr'r urttlr'r lris letter for examination and report. On "12.07.2012, he receiver'l back cas.' property from the office of chemical examiner and then cleposited the same in Police Malkhana City Court, Karachi. After completion of his investigation and after obtaining permissiorr lre subrnitted challan against tlre accusetl trcfort' tlrr' trial court.

4 5 ilrt'r't'alier forrrral ,h,rlge rr'.rs fr'.tntc,-l art.i r('i](1 o\'('r' to tht' .rrL rr.L'rl. lo rvhiclr tlrt'r,[rolh plt'arltrl not gtriiir,nn!] cl.irr(,rl to bc tlir-'ri.,

I3l

6.To prove its case the prosccution examineei 03 prosecution witncsses atrtl exhibited nunlerous documents and other items ancl therealter the siclc'of tht' prosecution was closerl. Ihen, DDI)P for thL. state fileei an applir:atitrtr utltk't' Section 540 Cr'.P.C. for calling PW Sajid, Nazir of Spccral Court No ll (CNS) Karachi which was allowetl on 25.02.2015 The P.rrosecution then examinetl ['W- 04 Sajid Mehmood Nazir. Learned counsel for accused again [ilcti arr application under Section 540 Cr.l'.C. for calling Dr' Fazal Ilahi, retiretl chemical > examiner for the purpose of evidence as Court Witness wlrich was allotvt'cl trtr 04.06.2016 ancl CW-01 Dr. F-azal lllahi retired chemical exantitte'r was ('x.rnlin('(1.

7.'l he stafernelrt .f tht':rccrtst'cl !vcr(' re( {)r(l('cl u/s iJ? ('r I'( irr rlllir lr ther, rlc'trietl .rll thr: alltli,riions lcvcllrl ag.rirrst tltt'rl artil 1'lL'.rtlt'.1 lal., inrplication.'fhev clitl not txarrine thctnsclves ()n ().rth ()r call atlt'rvitnr'.s rtr suPPrrrt of tlreir clefcnse c.rst'.

8.Learned Special Court-l (C,N.S.) Kalachi after hearing tl]e learned couttst'l ltrt tht' parties and assessment of evicleuce available on rectud, \'ide ,u(.llFrerrt d.rt('(l 30.10.2017 convicted and sentencecl the appellants irs stated above, hence tlrese al.rpt'.tls has been filed by the appellants against their convictions.

9 []rc lacts of the c.rsL, ils !1('ll .rs cvidtn((' l,r'otluccel Lreiort' thc tri,rl ( (,tilt finrl .rn elabor.rtL' Ircnti()l) in lirt' jr.relgrrt'nt tlatr'rl i0 l() 2{)17 passL'ri [,t tlrt'lri.rl cottt-t trncl, tht:refote. the sanrr.' rttill rt()t Lrc rt'|rro.lucttl ltt'tt' st, as ttr arot,.l rlLrplicatior.r trr'ril unrrt r tss.rrr. r'cirt'tition

10.Learnecl counsel Ior tlre appellants has contendetl that thert' aro trt.lior' conrradictions in the eviclence of the PW's especially concerning the colour ol the rec<;verecl narcotics arrcl thus the appellants should be actluittetl bv extending to them the benefit of the doubt. In support of his contontions hc h.rs placed reliance on Muhammad Qasim v, The State (2018 P. Cr. LJ Nott' (r7), Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others (in Criminal Appeals No.523,52.1, 525, 494, 452, 5L of 20-17,72 of 2018 ancl Criminal Petition No.94-Q oi 2017 llecided on 3"t October,201ii), anel Abdul Waqar v. The State (201Ii YLR 2351J).

-i( 11, On the other hand learned DPG has Iully supported the impugncrl judgment. He contended that the prosecution had provetl its case against th(, appellants beyond a reasonable r.loubt ancl liatl in particular conterrtlccl th.rt lhe appellants were arrested orr the spot when thL, t-ccovery ()f the narcotics \,l,.ts -

t4l t\v -5eL lnacle, that the chemical report is positive and that tl.rere are otrlv minor contradictions in the case of the prosecution whicll call be ignoreri antl thrrs lhc appeals shoultl be clisrnissecl. In suprport oi Iris contentiotrs, he placerl rt'liatrcc on State through Regional Director ANF Peshawar v' Sohail Khan (2019 SCMR 1288), Muhammad I(amran v. The State (2019 SCMR 131"1), Hussain Shah and others v, The State (PLD 2020 Suprctnc Cout't 132) antl Mehboob-ur- Rehrnan v. The State (2010 NILD 4131).

I

I2. lVcIrav,:he'ar.ltlredrtlLurtntsoltltt'lt'attlt'tlc()lrrrst'l l()r llr(' ll,llti('\' q,)rrr' llttough the tntire t,r,iriencc rtlri,h h.rs bt'r'n t'c.rtl trut bt ilrL' a1,pr'll,rrti. lh irnPugnt,tl jur.l1;r.nent rt,ith tlrtir.rblt,.tssistarr|c trnrl h.rvr'cot'tsitle'rt'rl tlrC r|lt'r attl )aw inclutling that cited at tlrc l.:ar.

-13. After our reassessrnent of the evidence we (ind that the Pr()secution ltas l,rt,vt'.I its case beyonci a reasonable clouLrt against the apPellarrt for the lollowinll rcns()ns:

(a)The FIR lvas legisterecl with pronlptitude giving rro tinl('f()r concoction ancl the. S.l6l statenr(,nts rvt-rt- rt-corrl('d promptly r.r.hich were rrot sigrrificantly inrplovr.'el upon [.y atrl' PW at tlrc time of giving eviclttrce.

(t)That the arlest.ur!i recovcrv rvas m;rlle on the spot ancl tlrt' appellants were caught red handed with the narcotics bv the Folice whose evirlence fully corrol-rortrtes t'ath otl'ter ilt all material respects as u,ell as the prosecuti(,l case. lt is r^,€'ll s{:ttl.'Ll by l'rotv that the eviclencc of a prrli, t, \aitness is as tcli.tble as anr othel u'itness p|trvirled tlrert nr) enmitv t'xists lrctu'ecD lh(]nr.]n(l the rccuser-l anr-l in this case lr() el']rnilv has l,celt suggt'sttrl ag,ainst any of the police l'lV's ar.rcl as su.h lhe g'lir'c h,trl no rcason to irnplicate th(' appellants ur.r [alsr- tasc. Ihus rr.' believe the lrolice cviclcnct, rvhiclr is t-orrobotativt'itr,rll matt'rtal respccts. Ileliarrce in this rcspect is placr:cl on thc utrrePortctl recent Supre'nrc Court (ase of Mushtaq Ahmed V The State clatcri 09-01-2020 in Climinal Pctiti()n No.f70 of 20lg '.vhcr('it r+,as held in rnatet ial palt a:i under .t p,r'.t 3;

"l>roseculion ca*' is ltinged upol lht sttte u'ttls of Auuir N'lasood, l5l (PlN-2) nnd Abul Hussnitt, 336-C (1'1.1,'-.1); bt:ittg offcinls of tlp Rellublit, they do ot see t to lntY n.re to grirul tgninst tln petilioner, iulerceltled nl a pubhc ytlrce during rruttitrc stttrL'h. Conlrnhnud, cousiiernbk in quantitv, cn ol lte ltossihly loistctl kt lnbrtcntL n fnke chnrgp, llttrl toL), lttitho t i V nllnn'nl rcnxtt: ithih' frnrishmg utidun'e, hoth the uifnasl.r rc titt l Ihrougltolt a()[sisle,rf nrtd <:otrfident'r' msptnrt2l rrtrtl ls srrch cat lt relicd upou tlilhout n tlenurr."

(rJ That there arl: no majot contraclicti()ns in tht'r'vitlcnct'trI tht' P\{'s ancl it is rvell st'ttlerl by n(r\{ tlrat ttrinor rontrarlictions rvhich do nol eflect tlre materiality of thc t'viclenct' can l.t'

i5l

ignorecl. In this lcspect reliance is placet-l on Zakir Khan V Slate 0 99s scMR 1793).

(r"t )Frr rthermore, untler Section 29 CNSA 1997 onct'tlrt' recovcn' has been proven as in Ll.tis casc th('onus shifts lo the accust'cl to shtrr{ his 'lhp innocence in that at least he hacl no knowletlgt' of [ht' narcotics. appellants have not been able to tlo so in this case as the evitlt'trtt' shows that the narcotics were recovered frorl them oll tlle sp()t ai](l as such they lvere caught red hancletl ancl arrester"'l on the sPot al()n8. with the narcotics r,l'hich were rec<lvert'cl from the'm I (e) That there was no r.lclay in serrclittll tht'first chemical repo|t for analysis which turned out to be Positive.

(f)That even a second chemical analysis was carritd out whith agirin proved positive anrl even the chemical examiner was callecl as CW-01 Dr. Fazal Illahi who was examined at length anci fullv supported the Prosecution case that the ntrlcoLics retoVCrt'tl werc lreroin ancl that all necessary protocols werc carri('(l ()tlt in connection with the chemical analysis of Lht' trirrcoticr. Ilt' was cross examinecl at lengtlr but tl.rc tlefense rvere not.lt.rlt'ltr put a single rlcltt irr his cvidence.

(g)lhat it rvoulel Lrc (,xtremely tlifficult to foist strch a largl amount of hcroin Lreing 13.5 Kgs ancl l2 Kgs on caclr appcllant respcctively making a grancl total ol 25.5 Kgs trf heroin as menl.ioned in Mustaq Ahnred's case (Supra) and 'Ihe State V Abdali Shah (2009 SCNIII 29i).

(h)That the recoverecl nar$tics \^,erc kept in safc r'ustodl' [rotrr thc time of their rt:cr'rvclY to the ti|rlr'\^,hc,r th('y \.1'(!('takcn lol' chemical analysis antl no sug8,r-'stion of tamfrerirrll u'ith the santo has even bct'r'r nratle. I'he nar.()tics lvere scalecl otr thr' s|()t lenailed sealed ip l\e nr.rlkltal;r LreIolt,lrei1g tralsptutetl tr: tht chen-Lical exantrrer in a scalecl c()nrlitiorl as per th(' chenrt(al report. In this respect reliarrce is placecl on the recertt Suprenr(' Court case of Zahid and l(iaz Ali V State datecl 03-()3-2020 (unreported) in Jail Appeal No.172 of 201fi. Although *ris cast' concerned rape since it concerned the safe custody (,f certain swatrs being sent to the chemical examint'r we colrsiclt'r its findings to be equallv a|Plicable to the safc custody of nar(-otics being sent to the ctremic.rl t'xaminer w'hich held as unrit'r;rt Pala 5 in material pal t;

"'lle cltemiatl etntunt'r's rcport yrt u.L\[ by tltp lnlv tk..hrr slttlr, tlnt tlE scnls of syccitttttts scttl fiir t'ltnucnl exttttti,uttitt tu:r. re.cenel int,rcl rttul it rons llte clrcuicnl exuniucr utl.:.t hnd hrol<L'n <tpen tlrc seols, lhercfore, llv coilottiou of tfu yetrtitttrtrs' lannu'i coulrcel rcgn ling the snt'e trnntnissnn o.f llv specinntrs is drscounted both by lltis fart ns u,ell ns ht/ lle fa(l lltol tlo tltti'sln 'nns put regtrtlirtg tnnrltarirg of thc snirl scnls."

(i)That although rro ilclepentlent mashir was associated with the arrest and recovery of the appellcurts it has come in evi(lence that A no private person lvas willing to becone an independent mashir at the time of arrest and recovery. Even otherwise 5,103 Cr.l'].C is excluded for offenses falling under the Control of Natcotic Sul.rstances Act 1997 by virtue of Section 25 of that Act. In this respect reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad llanif V The State (2003 SCMR 1217).,

iuu t6l ry 0 That in ilt'aling with narcotics cases thc courts.lrc strPPos('(l kr adopt a dynamic ap;.rtoach an(l not acquit Ure accust'tl on technicalities. In this lcspect relianct'is placcd on Chualm Qadir V The State (PLD 2006 5C 61) tlhich helcl as unr'ler at Para 8

P.66.

"Wt nrc nol ngrceable u'illt tlc ct.,.r-tenlion o.f lhc lrttrnul tottttstl becnusr lru I ft'ttttttt\ ll tl " l\\1lttl I lo -t't\" tttrt h'rtttrl lying ot tlu r.ltfof llrt: rclu,.lL'lhL'rtti,re, tltt fuchtttrfuty, rtlnlt is lrciug ltoithl otl hy tlu' lL'nrut,l tortnv'1, trtttrhl nol l't sulJicit,ttl to nLquit lti)1. Iu d.lditi(ttt to it irt sttch-likc cascs |. Courts ere stltltosed to dispose of ll*' matler u'itlt dynanic tppr<tach, insteud of acquittirrg tlrc dnrg paddlers otr technicolilies, rts iI lras^ l,eot h?ld itt (l(l')3 SCMII TSS) anl (l'l.D 199b SC 3051. (b,,ltl atldcet)

(k)No doutrt it is for tlre prosecution t() pr()ve its c.ist'.1&ritrst tile accused beyoncl a reasonatrle doubt but 11,s fi61,9;1156 consi'.lt'rerl tlre defenst case which in essen(t as Per tht'ir 5.342 st.rt(.m('Ils was iust a l.rasic plea of false inrPlic.rtion. 1he1' tlir"l not liivt' evidr,'nce cln oath anti tlitl not.all ar1\" tvitness ilt support rrf tlrt'i:' tlefense cases ancl as clisr-ussetl .rtrove lhe poliLe hatl I1() orlnlitY with them ancl har,l no [(,ason t(] inrPli6nll thonr in a lalsr' ,itst arrd as suclr wt' clishelievc the clefcrrse of the appell.urts.

l-1. Ihus, t,rI tlte rt'.tsrrtrs nunti()n,'LI at,,rr'., rr,, lrn(l thnt lir,'fr\rsr'(Lrlt,)rl lr.rs l,tL,r, Ll rt' (,ls(' b('von!l a rr:asorrirt,le (l(,Lrlrl nlt.rin5t tlrc .r1,1,1 lln1115 ancl tlrt' rrrpulitr|ri jtrrlllrrrcnt rs trl.helel antl the appeals.r'(, Llisrris,i(,(l

15.The appcals are disposr:cl o[ irr tlrc abovc Llrnrs

Y

l!,'), )

'N&!(

"t"'/".

iil

UIX,I:

I

r.