' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Babar Ali alias Sajoo appellant was tried by the learned Judge Special Court, Control of Narcotic Substances, Lahore in case F.I.R. No. 2, dated 20-2-2001 under sections 9(c)/15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station A.N.F. Lahore, who vide judgment, dated 19-4-2003 convicted the appellant for offence under section 9(c) C.N.S.A. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lac) or in default thereof to further undergo one year S.I. Availing the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved of the conviction and sentence awarded to him, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
2. The brief facts of this case as narrated in the F.I.R. (Exh.PA) are that on 20-2-2000 Muhammad Riaz Sumro, Assistant Director, ANF, Lahore, complainant of the case after constituting a raiding party for checking the drug peddlers was present at Railway Crossing Tehait, Green Town, Lahore.
At about 4.45 p.m. Two persons came on a motorcycle No.LOF-3106 towards Railway Crossing carrying a plastic "Tora". On suspicion they were stopped. The person sitting on the rear jumped down and made good his escape while the other was caught hold of by the raiding party, who disclosed his name as Babar Ali alias Sajoo, appellant herein. He told that the absconder was his brother Abid Ali and the bag contained Charas, which was taken into possession. He further disclosed that another "Tora" of Charas was concealed by his brother in his house which he could get recovered, whereupon the house of AbidAli (P.O.) was raided in the company of Babar Ali appellant who got recovered another "Tora" containing Charas from the house of Abid Ali (P.O.)
Both the "Toras" containing charas were checked and 40 packets (each weighing 1 Kg.) from each bag were recovered totalling 80 Kg. Charas (P1) and from each packet one gram charas was separated and made into two separate sealed parcels as samples. The remaining charas was also sealed into two separate parcels and was taken into custody vide recovery memo (Exh. PB/1). The sample sealed parcels were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis and according to the report (Exh.PE) of the Chemical Examiner the sample sealed parcels contained charas. The motorcycle LOF-3106 (P.2) was also seized. The accused Abid Ali could not be arrested and was declared as P.O. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned and put to trial for prosecution. Charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. The prosecution led in evidence as many as 5 prosecution witnesses namely Qadir Ahmed Baig Inspector P.W.1, Rana Muhammad Sarwar A.S.-I. P.W.2, Ghulam Hussain Constable P.W.3, Subedar Muhammad Siddique P.W.4 and Muhammad Riaz Sumro Assistant Director P.S. ANF. The remaining prosecution witness namely Havaldar Muhammad Nawaz was given up by the Special Public Prosecutor being unnecessary and closed the case for prosecution.
4. At the conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence led by it at the trial was full of contradictions; that the recovery shown to have been effected from the appellant was in fact planted by the police/ANF; that non-association of the members of the general public in the recovery proceedings was in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. And that the case of the prosecution was full of doubts and therefore, the impugned judgment was not sustainable under the law and deserved to be set- aside.
6. Mr. Ehtesham Qadir Shah, the learned Special Prosecutor for the ANF has vehemently defended the impugned judgment and has urged that a huge quantity of narcotics had been recovered from the appellant as well as from the house of his brother Abid Ali (P.O.) at his pointation and thus the same was in direct physical control of the appellant; that the prosecution witnesses are consistent in their stand regarding apprehension of the appellant and the recovery of narcotics from his possession; that the report of the Chemical Examiner was in positive which proved that the appellant was dealing in narcotics and that theapplicability of section 103, Cr.P.C. Was excluded by virtue of section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act.
7. We have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have gone through the record.
8. It is case of the prosecution that a sack containing charas wasrecovered from the appellant and on his disclosure that another sack of charas was concealed by his brother Abid Ali in his house a raid was conducted in the company of appellant who got recovered another sack from the house of his brother Abid Ali (P.O.). Both the sacks contained 40 packets of charas each totalling 80 Kg.
From each packet one gram charas was separated and made into sealed parcels as samples which were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The remaining charas was sealed into a parcel in the presence of the attesting witnesses. A careful examination of the testimony of P.W.4 Subedar Muhammad Siddique and P.W.5 Muhammad Riaz Sumro Assistant Director ANF the witnesses of recovery of charas 80 Kg. P1 from the appellant, indicates that the said witnesses are unanimous in respect of all aspects of the prosecution case, hence, their statements can, without hesitation, be termed as true and confidence inspiring. Despite lengthy cross-examination by the defence, their testimony could not be shaken on any material point.
Thus, no reason appears on the record for the rejection of their testimony. The mere fact that the said P.Ws. Are all official witnesses does not deprive their testimony of its due evidentiary value.
Members of the police/ANF are competent witnesses in the eyes of law and their testimony is worth reliance unless it can be shown that they were false witnesses and have out of malice and for ulterior motives involved an innocent person. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out anyor mala fide on the part of the recovery witnesses on account of which the appellant was implicated in the instant case.
9. A large quantity of charas had been recovered from the appellant and on his pointation from the house of his brother Abid Ali (P.O.) which, by no stretch of imagination could have been falsely planted upon the appellant. The report of the Chemical Examiner being in the positive further proves the prosecution case against the appellant. The discrepancies highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant are minor in nature and insignificant.
10. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding non-compliance of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, suffice it to say that section 25 of the C.N.S.A. Specifically excludes the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Hence, non-association of members of the public in the recovery proceedings is neither a requirement of law nor an absolute rule.
11. It is an accepted principle of law that when an accused takes a specific defence plea, the onus to prove the same shiftes on the accused who is required to produce evidence in respect thereof.
In the instant case the appellant stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case due to murder case got registered by him against Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Idrees for the murder of his father and brother vide F.I.R. No.303/2000 at Police Station Kahna and in that case Muhammad Siddique was a proclaimed offender who had extended threats to the petitioner and his brother and it was at his instance that the appellant had been involved in the case by ANF authorities. The appellant in support of his plea merely relied upon the F.I.R. Referred to above and did not lead any evidence to substantiate his version to prove that he was not arrested from the spot and was arrested from his house. There is absolutely nothing on the record to even remotely suggest that accused in the case F.I.R. No.303/2000 had any connection with members of the raiding party. Thus, the appellant neither produced any evidence in support of the plea at the trial nor any such attending circumstance was brought on the record by the appellant.
12. In view of what has been discussed above, the case against the appellant stands fully proved.
Consequently, the appeal has no merit which is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is maintained.