' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Mst. Bakhta appellant has filed instant Jail Appeal No,361 of 2005, to call in question the judgment, dated 9-4-2005, recorded by Mr. Abdur Rehman Khan, Judge, Special Court (C.N.S.), N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer three years'
R.I. And fine of Rs,30,000 or in default to undergo further three months' S.I. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended to her.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is, that Inspector Arbab Ghias Ahmad, Police Station A.N.F.
Peshawar along with a police party consisting of H.C. Feroz Khan and others had conducted "Naka Bandi" on 29-4-2004 at Jehangira Swabi Road in order to check smuggling of narcotics. In the meanwhile at about 1200 hours, a Flying Coach No,C-1570 Swabi was stopped for checking. On the front seat, a woman was found sitting in suspicious condition. She was having a bag in her lap. She was brought down of the coach. On asking she disclosed her name as Mst. Bakhta wife of Shamshad, resident of Lala Killay, District Peshawar. The search of the bag through lady constable Mst. Saeed Bano led to recovery of 5 packets of Charas wrapped in plastic envelops. The Charas was weighed and found 5 kilograms. A meagre quantity i,e, 4 grams from each packet was separated out of the recovered material and sent to laboratory for test. The remaining was sealed into parcel. A memo. Was duly prepared to this effect and signed by the marginal witnesses. The accused was formally arrested and a case was registered against her under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted against the accused in Court, to which she did not plead guilty and then the trial of the case commenced against the accused.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced three witnesses, namely, Inspector Arbab Ghias (P.W.1), Lady H.C. Mst. Saeed Bano (P.W.2) and Moharrir Fidaullah (P.W.3) and abandoned H.C.
Feroz Khan being unnecessary.
4. The accused in her statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been falsely charged. She refused to make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Or to produce any defence evidence.
5. Miss Saadia Siddiqui, Advocate, representing the appellant on the strength of a case reported as Dhadar Khan v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 478, contended that the appellant was convicted on highly flimsy, doubtful and interested witnesses of the prosecution; that the requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. Were seriously violated as no independent and disinterested witnesses from the locality were associated with the recovery proceedings and that there are contradictions which make the prosecution case doubtful. Lastly, she maintained that sentence awarded to the appellant is on higher side and does not commensurate with the gravity of the offence. She requested for reduction in the sentence.
6. Mr. Tariq Khan Kakar, Advocate appearing on behalf of Anti-Narcotic Force supported the judgment of the trial Court whole heartedly and submitted that prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and appeal merits outright dismissal.
7. At the conclusion of trial, the appellant having been found guilty, was convicted and sentenced as mentioned and detailed above.
8. The prosecution in order to prove the apprehension and recovery of the Charas from possession of the appellant has produced Inspector Arbab Ghias Ahmad (P.W.1), complainant in this case and H.C. Mst. Saeed Bano (P.W.2) and the positive report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.W.1/4. Both these witnesses have supported the recovery of 5 kilograms Charas from the possession of the appellant. Their evidence has established that the Charas in the above quantity was recovered from the possession of the appellant at the above given date, time and place. Both the witnesses have demonstrated complete unanimity on material points and, the appellant has failed to point out any discrepancy in their statements. Contradictions highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant are so minor that on the basis of those it cannot be held that trial of the case stood vitiated. It is true that P.Ws. Ghias Ahmad and A Mst. Saeed Bano are officials of Anti-Narcotic Force but it is equally true that they have no, reason or motivation for false implication. The learned counsel for the appellant has not urged any rancour or animosity against these witnesses with the appellant. Needless to emphasize that testimony of a police official cannot be discarded simply for the reason that he belongs to Police Department. Police man is as good witness as any other person until and unless, evidence is brought on record to discredit his testimony.
9. As far violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the application of this provisions of Cr.P.C. Section 25 of the C.N.S.A.
Is coached and is with the object that provision of section 103, Cr.P.C. Need not be followed for offences under the Act. Even otherwise when the recovery was made from a public vehicle, which is occupied by passengers, it is difficult to persuade any witness to volunteer to become witness to the recovery.##TE#
10. The learned 'Counsel for the appellant contended that there were serious lapses in the process of investigation which had vitiated the trial. However, she has not been able to point out any so- called serious defect in the investigation, other than certain minor lapses which do not affect the validity of the trial.##TE#
11. The recovery evidence supported by the Chemical Examiner report is beyond doubt and confidence-inspiring. The appellant had not challenged the nature of recovery substance being not Charas or narcotics before the trial or this Court. The onward transmission of 4 grams sample taken out of the total narcotics material recovered from possession of the appellant, to the office of Chemical Examiner is also proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The report of the Analyst received back is found in positive which has supported the prosecution story as well as recovery of narcotics in this case.##TE#
12. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding various hats simultaneously worn by the Investigating Officer has also failed to impress us. In State through Advocate-General, Sindh v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 it was held:- "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. The Court will have to appraise the evidence produced by the prosecution as a whole and will have to form the opinion after evaluating the same."
' In view of the above, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference of this Court. As regards quantum of sentence we find that the learned trial Court has already taken lenient view and awarded lesser sentence to the appellant. The request of the appellant for reduction in sentence cannot be granted in the circumstances of the case. The appeal having no merit is dismissed.##TE#