' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---Raza Khan and Javed Iqbal, respondents, were tried by learned Additional Judge/Judge, Special Court, Kohat, in case F.I.R. No,24, dated 3-7-2002, registered at Police Station, Saddar Kohat. At the conclusion of trial, vide judgment, dated 3-7-2002, respondents were convicted under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer ten years', R.I. Each along with fine of Rs,50,000 each or in default of payment of fine to undergo further six months' S.-I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended to the convicts.
2. The State through Advocate-General, N.W.F.P, Peshawar has filed instant Criminal Revision Petition No,105 of 2002, challenging the impugned judgment, dated 3-7-2002 and seeking enhancement in sentence awarded to the respondents.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant Lal Farid Khan (P.W.3), S.H.O., Police Station, Saddar Kohat, on 3-7-2000, on receipt of spy information, conducted `Nakabandr near graveyard of village Togh Bala, Kohat. At about 1830 hours, three persons carrying `ghatrees' were sighted coming from Bazid Khel side. They disclosed their names as Javed Iqbal, Raza Khan and Taj Muhammad. On opening, the `ghatri' carried by Javed Iqbal contained charas `pukhta' and opium weighing 15000 grams (charas) and 5500 grams (opium) respectively. The `ghatri' carried by Raza Khan contained charas `pukhta' weighing 18000 grams. Taj Muhammad was found having a Klashinkov, cartridgesand charas in his `ghatri'. A meagre quantity was separated out of the contraband material for chemical examination. The remaining was sealed into parcels. The accused were formally arrested and a case was registered against them, which was incorporated into F.I.R. (Exh.PA) by A.S.-I. Qasier Khan (P.W.1).
4. The prosecution in order to prove the apprehension of the respondents and recovery of contraband narcotics from their possession, has produced A.S.-I. Arman Gul (P.W.2), and S.H.O. Lal Farid Khan (P.W.3). While examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the respondents totally denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated with the crime. Neither the respondents appeared as witnesses in their defence under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor did they produce any defence witness.
5. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the respondents, as mentioned and detailed above.
6. Mr. Amin ur Rehman, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State contended that the trial Court fell in error while awarding the lesser sentence of ten years to the respondents. Normal sentence for the offence is death or imprisonment for life; therefore, by accepting the criminal revision the same may be enhanced.
7. Malik Haroon Iqbal, Advocate, representing the respondents, on the other hand, maintained that respondents have been convicted on the basis of flimsy and shaky evidence; that there is no legal evidence against the respondents to connect them with the crime; that the evidence produced by the prosecution is highly discrepant and suffers from infirmities; that the formalities of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have been seriously violated and that the possibility of the respondents having acts as carriers, cannot be excluded in the circumstances of the case. To augment the contention, reliance was placed on Amanullah alias Aman v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 1536), Sherzada, v. The State (1993 SCM R 149), Zahoor Ahmad Awan and another v. The State (1997 SCM R 543) and Asghar Ali v. The State (1996 SCM R 1541).
8. A careful examination of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses indicates that all the witnesses are unanimous on all the broad features of the case and their statements bear all shades of truthfulness, therefore, no reason appear from the record for the rejection of their testimony. The mere fact that the witnesses are official witnesses, would not rob their testimony of its evidentiary worth. The learned counsel for the respondents has failed to point any background of bitterness or ill-will between the recovery witnesses and the respondents so as to promptthe former to falsely involve the latter in a case of this nature. A huge quantity of contraband charas and opium has been recovered from the `ghatrees' carried by the respondents. The report of the Chemical Examiner regarding the samples of the recovered material is in the positive.
Discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel are minor in nature and insignificant. Same are not fatal to the main allegation of recovery of narcotics. Contention of the learned counsel that recoveries were not witnessed by persons from public, we may observe that section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excludes the application of section 103, Cr:P.C.
9. The respondents were produced in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan (P.W.4) on 7-7-2000.
The Magistrate recorded their confessional statements according to law.
10. Adverting to the other aspect of the case regarding quantum of sentence, we find that though the plea of respondents being acting in the capacity of carriers was not taken by them before the trial Court but under the law this Court can consider the said plea, if it is borne out from the evidence produced by the prosecution. A perusal of the confessional statements of the respondents, relied upon by the trial Court, would reveal that it was specifically stated by the respondents in confessional statements that they were poor labourers and were misled to act as carriers for a principal accused.
' In view of the above, the respondents having been found acting as carriers, the sentence awarded to them is appropriate in The circumstances of the case and does not warrant interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The criminal revision fails, which is hereby dismissed and impugned judgment is maintained.