Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, J--Appellant, Mir Hassan impugns judgment dated 8.6.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, Anti Narcotics, Attock convicting and sentencing him under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default whereof for further one year rigorous imprisonment besides giving him the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution is t.hat on 15.6.2004 at about 11:00 a.m., Car No. .LRC 6429 came from Kohat when Barkat Pervaiz Awan, Excise Inspector alongwith other police officials was at Check Post Jand in connection with checking of narcotics. On suspicion, the car was stopped and Mir Hassan was apprehended and on search, two bags of polythene containing heroin were found on each side of the engine. On opening the same, 20 packets of brown colour and 5 packets of white , colour heroin were recovered which on weighing came to 25-kilograms. Small quantity from-each category was separated and total one gram was separated for chemical analysis. He prepared sealed parcels and took into possession case property brown heroin Exh P1 and white Heroin Exh P2.
The bags which were used for Heroin Exh P-3 and Exh P-4, Car Exh P-5, Registration Book Exh P-6 were taken into possession alongwith sample parcels vide memo Exh PA. On personal search of the accused he recovered Rs. 700 P-7/1-3, Mobile phone Exh P-8, driving license Exh P9, photocopy of NIC Exh P-10, Wrist watch Casio Exh P-11 and took the same into possession vide memo Exh PB. He drafted complaint Exh PC and sent it to the P.S through Muhammad Yaqoob for registration of the case.
3. After completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the trial Court. The learned trial Court formally charged the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced six witnesses in all they were Juma Khan-HC (PW.1), Noor Muhammad (PW.2), Muhammad Aslam, Excise Constable (PW.3), Barkat Pervaiz Awan, Excise Inspector (PW.4), Muhammad Amir Khan, SI (PW.5) and Arshad Mehmood (PW.6). The prosecution in order to strengthen its case tendered documentary evidence.
4. After closure of the prosecution evidence statement of the accused u/S. 342 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the allegations leveled against him by the prosecution as the police party let off the real culprit and falsely implicated him in this case. It was not possible that a huge quantity of 25-Kilogram heroin was lying in both sides of the engine. The appellant has neither opted to make his statement under Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence. the learned trial Court after conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
6. The prosecution substantiates its case by producing oral as well, as documentary evidence.
Muhammad Aslam, Excise Oonstable (PW 3) and Muhammad Amir. Khan, SI (PW.5) were officials of 'the excise department who were present for checking the narcotics at the check post Jhand at the relevant time besides the other police officials. The appellant was apprehended at about 11:00 a.m. while driving motorcar No. LRC 6429. The testimony of PW-3 & PW-4 has been reappraised and we do not find any material contradiction either in the prosecution version as given in the FIR or the deposition made by these witnesses. A huge quantity of heroin weighing 25-Kilograms was recovered from the bonnet of the motorcar. Other important incriminating evidence includes the recovery of Mobile Phone Bearing No. 03005971773, Identity Card, Driving License of the appellant alongwith watch and cash.
7. The prosecution witnesses have been cross-examined but nothing has been elicited from their statements. The appellant, feeling satisfied with his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., has not appeared as his own witness on oath under Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. We are not impressed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the huge quantity of narcotics cannot be placed in bonnet of the car, as Barkat Pervaiz Awan, Excise Inspector (PW 4) stated in his statement before the Court that bonnet of the car was locked with the help of a rope. The next submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the recoveries have been effected in violation of Section 103 Cr.P.0 is also devoid of force. Admittedly, the recovery of narcotic substance has been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The said provisions of special statute specifically exclude the application of Section 103 Cr.P.C. It has now been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that police officials are competent witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely for the reasons that they are police officials. Keeping in view the analogy; we hold the testimony of excise officials as good as the testimony of private witness. We find from the record that evidence of recovery in respect of quantity of the narcotic substance recovered and for sending it for chemical analysis, is consistently established by the PWs. The report of the Chemical Analyst in respect of substance transmitted to him by PW-2 is in positive. As for as the contention that out of the entire recovery of 25 Kilogram heroin only a meager quantity has been dispatched to the Chemical Examiner by the prosecution and the report, though positive, should be considered to that extent only, is meritless in view of provisions of Section 36 of the Act ibid. It is not denied that sample is always part of the total and is not required that whole quantity of narcotics be sent to the Chemical Examiner for the purposes of analysis.
8. For the above recorded reasons, we find that the prosecution had brought sufficient material on the record to connect the appellant with the commission of crime and his consequential guilt.
Resultantly, this petition being devoid of force is dismissed.