JUDGMENT IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- Tariq Javed and Imran Shakeel appellants on conclusion of trial in case F.I.R. No. 473, dated 12.11.2001 registered at P.S. Khanqah Dogran were convicted under Section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 and sentenced to five years' R.I. With a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default of payment whereof to further undergo S.I. For six months' each. However, they were given the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.2001 at about 11.00 a.m. Within the area of Adda Bhatti Goods Khanqah Dogran, PS Khanqah Dogra both the appellants alongwith the co-accused Shahid (since dead) were raided and found in possession of 10, bags of poppy (toras) each containing of 50 k.g. Total 500 k.g. One k.g. Each was taken out from all the bags and made into sealed parcels for analysis. The remaining poppy in the bags was also sealed and all the parcels were taken into possession vril recovery memo. Ex.P-B.
3. The challan was submitted in the Court after completion of the investigation. Then the appellants were charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined four PWs. The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C, denied the allegations and professed innocence. The learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that Tariq Javed appellant was a driver while Imran Shakeel was conductor of the truck, who were not connected with the alleged crime; that during the trial accused Hakeem Muhammad Shahid died; that allegedly 10 bags of poppy containing 50 k.g. Each were recovered from the appellants, but when the case property was opened, the same was only found to be sand, which poles a part about the prosecution story.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes this appeal.
6. After going through the whole prosecution evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find that the PWs had any enmity with the appellants to falsely implicate them in the present ease. They remained' consistent regarding the time, place and the manner in which the recovery was effected from the appellants. The police officials are as good or bad witnesses as the public witnesses can be and the PWs cannot be disbelieved merely for this reason as it is being generally noticed that the public witnesses are not come forward due to the fear of the desperate accused persons involved in such like cases. Regarding the case property an inquiry was initiated and at this stage it cannot be held that the material recovered from the appellants was not poppy as according to the prosecution version at the time of recovery of the total material, ten kilograms material was separated for chemical analysis and according to the report of the- Chemical Examiner, all the material contained 'post': A huge quantity of material was recovered from the appellants and there does not appear any reason for falsely planting such a huge material upon the appellants. The appellants cannot be exonerated from the charge merely on the ground that the case property when was opened In the Court was only containing sand as inquiry is being conducted in this regard. However, according to the report of the Chemical Examiner at least 10 k.g.
Material recovered from the appellants out of the total was containing 'post'. As such the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt.
We do not find any reason warranting interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, which is maintained and this appeal is dismissed.