' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---Appellant Syed Wali, stands convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer R.I. For two years. He has been given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., vide judgment, dated 27-5-2005, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Bannu.
2. The appellant, feeling aggrieved, has filed Criminal Jail Appeal No.80 of 2005, to challenge his conviction and sentence.
3. The prosecution story in brief is, that on 21-4-2003, complainant Muhammad Shafiq Khan, S.H.O., Police Station, City Bannu, along with the police party, consisting of A.S.-I. Banaras Khan and others, was on usual `gashe of the area, when at about 2300 hours, he noticed a person roaming in suspicious condition. He was holding a plastic envelope in his hand. The search -of the envelope led to recovery of Charas. The Charas was weighed and found 1000 grams. A meagre quantity i.e. Four grams was separated out of the seized property and was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner, Peshawar, whose report confirms the contents to be that of narcotics. On asking the accused disclosed his name as Syed Wali son of Muhammad Ali, resident of Mataki Bizen Khel, Bannu. The accused was formally arrested and a case was registered against him under section 9(c) of the Act ibid.
4. The police after conducting investigation submitted challan. The learned trial Court at the conclusion of the trial, found the prosecution against the appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and thus he was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. Charge was read over to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case, therefore, examined two witnesses and then closed its side. The appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated. He, however, did not opt to produce evidence in his defence to depose on oath in disproof of the allegations appearing against him in the prosecution evidence.
6. Mr. Zahid Mohibullah, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the narcotics were in possession of the appellant; that from the prosecution evidence no case whatsoever was made out against the appellant; that statements of P.Ws. Are full of contradictions and infirmities; that the recovery cannot be relied upon as the mandatory requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have not been complied with by the Investigating Officer; that the sample has been sent to the Chemical Examiner belatedly and that the material on record cannot be considered sufficient to sustain conviction. In the alternative, the learned counsel submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the one already undergone.
7. Chaudhry Muhammad Sharif, learned Deputy Advocate-General, on the contrary, defended the impugned judgment and maintained that sufficient material was available on the record, implicating the appellant with the guilt and his conviction and sentence was perfect and legal.
8. The prosecution in order to prove the factum of apprehension of the appellant and recovery of the contraband Charas from his possession, has produced two witnesses namely, A.S.-I. Banaras Khan (P.W.1) and S.H.O. Muhammad Shafiq Khan (P.W.2). These witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story. They have remained absolutely consistent, coherent and have resolutely withstood lengthy cross-examination. 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. Incriminating statements of the prosecution witnesses on oath were enough to connect the appellant with the commission of crime. The defence has not been able to shatter their testimony or pinpoint any illwill which may have been harboured by the said witnesses against the appellant.
The mere fact that these witnesses belong to police department, by itself, cannot be considered a good ground to discard their statement. Needless to emphasize that police officials are as good witnesses as any other witness as held in Feroz Shah v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 1470). As far violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, section 35 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the application of this provision of Cr.P.C., as held in Muhammad Amin v. The State (1999 SCM R 1367). The stance of the appellant that he has been implicated falsely in this case by the police, has been found to be without any substance. Nothing in support of the same was brought on the record by the appellant to believe that it was actually so.
9. Adverting to the objection regarding late dispatch of sample to the laboratory for chemical examination, we find that same is of no consequence and does not demolish the prosecution case in any manner.
10. The onward transmission of four grams sample taken out from the total narcotics material recovered from the appellant, to the office of Chemical Examiner, Peshawar is also proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The appellant had not challenged the recovery of substance being not Charas, or narcotic before the trial Court or this Court. No question was put to prosecution witnesses at the trial in this regard. The report of Chemical Examiner received back was found in positive, which has supported the prosecution story as well as recovery of narcotics in this case.
11. In view of what has gone above, we are satisfied that the appellant was apprehended by the police and was found in possession of Charas weighing thousand grams. The learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view while awarding sentence to the appellant. We are not peruseded to accept the plea of the learned appellant's counsel and reduce the sentence. The appeal fails, which is hereby dismissed. Impugned judgment is maintained.