' Through instant Criminal Appeal No,74 of 2004 appellant Jalat Khan son of Shadi Khan, resident of Muhkam Khel Manjiwala, District Lakki Marwat has challanged the judgment dated 17-7-2004 recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat whereby the appellant was convicted under Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order: 1979 and sentenced to undergo one year R.I.
And a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default thereof, to suffer S.I. For one week with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution story in brief is, that on 17-4-2002 P.W. Usman Ghani, S.H.O., Police Station, Naurang, pursuant to an information that Jalat Khan required in case F.I.R. No,13 registered at Police Station, Naurang under section 379, P.P.C. Read with section 39-A of Electricity Act, was likely to come to village Baz Killa, he along with a police party laid 'Naqabandi' on road leading to Baz Killa near Adda Gandi Khan Khel. At about 0800 hours a person coming from Adda Gandi Khan Khel side in suspicions condition was stopped. On inquiry he disclosed his name as Jalat Khan. He was holding a plastic envelope in his right hand. The envelope contained Charas. The Charas was weighed and found 1000 grams. A meagre quantity was separated and sent to Chemical Examiner, Peshawar for opinion and report. The remaining was sealed in a parcel. Jalat Khan was arrested and a case under Articles 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 9 of Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 was registered against him at Police Station, Naurang vide F.I.R. No, 129 dated 17-4-2002.
3. Charge against the appellant was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced three witnesses in all.
4. Appellant was examined under section 342, 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. The trial Court upon examination of material on record adjudged the appellant guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.
6. While challenging the legality of the impugned judgment, Mr. Younis Ali Khan, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is full of doubts, omissions and there are major contradictions in the statements of P.'Ws.; that the requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have not been complied with in this case and despite advance information and availability of independent witnesses, the same were not associated with the recovery proceedings; that after separation of preventive and investigation staff of the police, S.H.O. Usman Ghani was not competent to carry out the investigation and that late dispatch of samples to Laboratory, has made the prosecution case doubtful. To augment the contentions, he placed reliance on Mst. Iqbal Bibi v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1812 Peshawar; Johar Ali and another v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 680 Peshawar; Karim and another v.
The State 2004 PCr.LJ 37 Peshawar and Sameer v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 886 Karachi.
7. As against that, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State supported the impugned judgment on the ground that both the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case and their evidence has further been supported by the positive report of Chemical Examiner besides the fact that the police officials are as good prosecution witnesses as compared to any other witnesses.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of the available record.
9. The prosecution in order to prove the factum of apprehension of the appellant and recovery of the Charas from his possession has produced A.S.-I. Inayatullah (P.W.2) and S.H.O. Usman Ghani (P.W.3). Both the 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. 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. No material discrepancies and contradictions are found in the statements of P. Ws.
Rather they are consistent regarding the time, place of occurrence and the recovery of Charas in question and the manner in which it has been effected. Though both the witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination but nothing could be gained by the defence to discard their statements. Delay in dispatch of samples also does not seem to have caused prejudice to the appellant.
10. The submission that compliance of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Was not made in the case as no two respectable persons of the locality were associated, has no force, firstly for the reason that provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have been excluded under the provision of section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the provisions of section 20 of the Act are directory in nature, therefore, its non-compliance cannot be considered as a strong ground for holding that the trial of the appellant is bad in the eye of law whereas on the other, it is not denied that 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 official witnesses in any other circumstance. Fida Jan v. The State 2001 SCM R 36 and Mian Gul Bacha Khan and another v. The State PLD 2004 Peshawar 246.
11. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding various hats simultaneously worn by the Investigating Officer has also failed to impress me. There is no legal prohibition for a police officer to be a complainant if he is a witness to the commission of an offence and also to be an Investigating Officer so long as it does not in any way, prejudice the accused person.
12. The conclusions drawn and reasons advanced by the trial Court show fair evaluation of evidence which is in accordance with settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, there is no justification to set aside the same. The case-law cited by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable and proceeds on different facts.
13. Resultantly, the appeal being meritless is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are maintained.