' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13- 5-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat whereby, he convicted the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced her to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,10,00,000 and in case of default in payment of fine she shall further undergo two years' R.I. In case F.I.R. No,421 dated 10-8-2002 registered under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Kunjah, District Gujrat.
2. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation submitted the challan before the learned trial Court. Formal charge was framed. She pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced its evidence. The appellant also got recorded her statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. She did not produce evidence in her defence.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the admission of P.W.3, in cross- examination, that sample for chemical analysis was obtained from one packet his case falls outside the ambit of section 9(c) of CNSA.
4. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the sample was obtained after amalgamation of entire quantity recovered from the appellant which is supported by recovery memo. Exh.PC and statement of P.W.5 Safwat Ullah S.I. As to the statement of P.W.3 about the admission of recovery from one packet, it was argued that the statement of P.W.3 is consistent with the prosecution case.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. P.W.3 Ijaz Ahmad, Constable in his examination-in-chief stated that the appellant was apprehended and on search of her residential house 17 sealed packets of Charas was recovered from her kitchen. Its weight was 17 K.Gs. Six grams Charas was separated from chemical analysis.
Both the packets were made into sealed parcel separately and were taken into possession through recovery memo. Exh.PC. In cross-examination he stated that six grams Charas was separated from one packet. It was separated by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for appellant tried to gain capital out of this statement on the ground that six grams Charas was obtained for chemical analysis from one packet, therefore, conviction of the appellant under section 9(c) of CNSA is bad in law. We noticed that six grams Charas was obtained after amalgamation of the entire quantity of Charas recovered from the appellant. P.W.5 Safwat Ullah S.I. Stated that on search of appellant's kitchen Charas was recovered consisting of 17 packets. Its weight was 17 K.Gs. Six grams was separated fro chemical analysis and sealed into a parcel and remaining quantity of Charas was sealed into a separate parcel through recovery memo. Exh.PC., which indicates that 17 sealed packets of Charas were recovered and on amalgamation its weight was found to be 17 K.Gs. The appellant has neither challenged the statement of P.W.5 nor questioned that sample was sent only from one packet out of 17 packets.
7. The prosecution has proved its case through the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5. Huge quantity of Charas weighting 17 K.Gs. Was recovered from kitchen of the appellant. She was the sole occupant of the premises. The recovery witnesses were not suggested any enmity with the appellant. In her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant for the, first time stated that she was implicated at the instance of Sher Afgan who is her "Jaith". He was inimical to her on account of refusal of the hands of her daughter for his son. This statement of the appellant is afterthought. Had it been correct, she must have taken this stand at the very beginning before the Investigating Officer and in the trial Court during the cross-examination of the recovery witnesses.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out the alleged violation of section 20 of CNSA by not obtaining search warrant when advance spy information was available with them. We have considered this aspect of the case. We are fully conscious of the fact that narcotics dealers are now an organized Mafia. Time is to be consumed in obtaining search warrant and the process undertaken, may leak the information enabling them to shift their narcotics to some other place.
The narcotic agency thus keeps the information secret till the raid is conducted to make it a successful. The provisions of section 20 CNSA are not mandatory. The observations of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Fida Jan v. The State (2001 SCM R 36) holding that provisions of section 20 of CNSA are directory in nature and its compliance cannot be urged as a C strong ground holding that the trial was bad in the eye of law.
9. Contention of the learned counsel that the recovery was not witnessed by person from public, we may observe that section 25 of CNSA excludes the application of section 103, Cr.P.C. Delay in dispatch of parcel has caused no prejudice to the appellant in absence of any allegation of tampering of the parcels.
10. No has been pointed out against the police officials for false implication of the appellant. As per record the appellant's "Jaith" Sher Afghan is also a narcotics dealer. Her husband is in jail. She admitted in her statement recorded under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. That her husband being an addict was convicted and sentenced to 5 years' R.I.
11. The prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. 17 K.Gs., Charas was recovered from the possession of the appellant, therefore, she does not deserve any leniency or concession in quantum of sentence on the ground of being a female.
12. For what has been discussed above, we hold that appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced. We maintain the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Resultantly, this appeal having no merit is dismissed.