A smart witness in his examination-in-chief faithfully conforms to what he stated earlier to the police, but in the cross-examination, he introduces statements contradicting what he said in the examination-in-chief---

 The appellant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced under Section 9-C of CNSA by the learned Judge Special Court C.N.S, Lahore------------

The prosecution witnesses made a statement revealing that during the investigation, no connection of the appellant was found with Tanveer Irshad or he was aware of the presence of any narcotics substance concealed in the consignment-------

The prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and these witnesses were not declared hostile by the learned trial court------------

Section 150 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not in terms or by necessary implication confine the exercise of the power by the Court to any particular stage of the examination of the witness to permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party-----------

It is wide in scope, and the discretion is entirely left to the Court to exercise power when the circumstances demand. To confine this power to the stage of examination-in-chief is to make it ineffective in practice-----------

A smat witness in his examination-in-chief faithfully conforms to what he stated earlier to the police, but in the cross-examination, he introduces statements contradicting what he said in the examination-in-chief--------

In the instant case, the evidence against the appellant remains the same--------

We observed that the prosecution witnesses deposed similar about the appellant's role, which was found during the investigation---------

In the course of cross-examination, when favorable answers had been elicited, the same would be considered by the learned trial court while passing the final judgment-------------

The learned trial court, while passing the judgment, whereby conviction and sentence of the appellant was recorded, has not considered the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses--------

In the present case, the prosecution has badly failed to establish that the appellant associated, facilitated, and abetted in booking parcels by using fake documents ---------

In such eventuality it is not possible to uphold and sustain the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant------------

Resultantly, appeal is allowed.