' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Appellant Mst. Shah Tareena through the instant appeal has challenged the vires of judgment dated 3-7-2004 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, C.N.S.A. Islamabad whereby he convicted her under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,50,000, in default whereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 30-9-2002, the complainant along with his subordinates was present on Motorway Chowk Bus Stop and at about 12-45 a.m a female along with her granddaughter Saima, aged about four years, whose name transpired later on as Shah Tareena wife of Mir Rehman r/o Landi Kotal, was found sitting on a bag of brown colour made of Rexene at the bus stop who was apprehended through lady constable on account of suspicion and during search of the bag, 115 slabs of charas weighing 12 Kilograms, were recovered from the said bag. The complainant separated 10 grams of charas, made it into sealed parcel for sending the same to the office of Chemical Examiner for analysis and sealed the remaining charas as well in another parcel and secured both the parcels vide memo. Exh. PB.
3. After completion of investigation, the appellant was found guilty and a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted before the trial Court. The learned trial Court formally charged the appellant to which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. its case produced four witnesses namely Muhammad Mursaleen (P.W.1), Akhtar Hussain-HC (P.W.2), Babra Bilal-LHC (P.W.3) and Muhammad Hussain LasiInspector (P.W.4). The prosecution in order to strengthen its case also tendered in evidence the documentary evidence. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which she pleaded her innocence and stated that the P.Ws. Have deposed against her simply to support the false case against her and they had no other way to dispose of the charas recovered from the place of occurrence. On the request of the defence, the statements of Mst. Zahida Parveen, constable and Muhammad Abbas, Head Constable were recorded as Court witnesses. However, she did not opt to appear on oath in disproof of the prosecution allegation.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the P.Ws. Which make the prosecution case highly doubtful; charas was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the appellant; the appellant is an old woman having weak and infirm health having a little maternal granddaughter with her; no offence tinder section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, is made out from the fact and circumstances of the case; the sentence is harsh and severe; the learned trial Court miserably failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State opposed the instant appeal vehemently.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone into the record with their assistance.
8. The prosecution has substantiated its case through the production of oral as well as documentary evidence P.Ws.3 and 4 were members of the police party who amongst other police officials arranged a Nakabandi at the Motorway Chowk, Main G.T. Road. The appellant was apprehended at 12-45 a.m. While sitting at a bus stop along with a minor-girl having a brown colour bag in her possession. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 has been reappraised and we do not find any material contradiction either in the prosecution version as given in the F.I.R. Or deposition made by these witnesses. A huge quantity of Charas weighing 12-Kilograms was recovered from the bag which was in possession of the appellant.
9. The prosecution witnesses have been cross-examined but nothing has been elicited from their statements. The appellant got her statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And did not appear as her own witness on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Mst. Zahida Parveen constable and Muhammad Abbas, Head Constable were summoned as Court witnesses on the application of the appellant. They produced the daily diary and Roznamchah of the above said dates containing entry of departure of Inspector (P.W.4). Through this record, the departure and arrival of P.W.4 from the police station was proved which is in line with the prosecution and not helpful to the case of the appellant. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the recovery has been effected in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is also devoid of any force. Admittedly, the recovery of narcotic substance has been made in view of the provision 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 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 employees. We have found from the record that the evidence of recovery in respect of the quantity of narcotic substance recovered and for sending it for chemical analysis is consistently established by the different prosecution witnesses. The report of the Chemical Analyst in respect of the substance is positive.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant has failed to make out a case of acquittal by this Court. Hence, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
11. Adverting to the quantum of sentence, the appellant being woman, previous non-convict and a first offender deserves leniency in the quantum of sentence and after considering all aspects of the case, we are inclined to reduce the sentence of the appellant from life to twelve years whereas fine is maintained with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
12. With the above modification, this appeal is dismissed.