' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J: - These two appeals i.e Crl. Appeal No, 382/2005 (Victor Masih v.
State) and Crl. Appeal No, 973/05 (Pervaiz Masih v. State) are proposed to be disposed of by this single judgment as both the appellants were tried together in F.I.R No, 240. Dated 3-6-2003, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Gojra, District T.T. Singh. Both the appellants were convicted and sentenced by single judgment dated 1- 3-2005 which is impugned in these two appeals. The learned trial Court held both the accused/appellants guilty of offence under section 9(c) of C.N.S.A., 1997. They were convicted under the aforesaid offence and sentenced to six -years' R.I each along with fine of Rs,25,000 each in default whereof, they would further undergo to six months' S.I. Each. However, both the appellants/accused were extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P.C. The case property of 2 Kg.
Charas was confiscated in favour of the State and was directed to be destroyed in accordance with law, after the expiry of period of appeal.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals are that on 3-6-2003 at about 2t30 p.m.
Nisar Ahmad, S.I; along with Abdul Jabbar, S.I., Muhammad Sadiq 810/C, Ghulam Ghaus 817/C, Abdul Fhaffr 89/C, Saifur Rehman417/C were present at Samundri Road bypass on patrol duty, where they stopped Car bearing Registration No, N-3273, Both the appellants were sitting in the car Pervaiz Masih was driving the car while Victor Masih was sitting at front seat. On checking of the car from dash-board charas weighing 2 kilogram was recovered. During the process of checking Pervaiz Masih succeeded to flee away while Victor Masih was apprehended. Out of the recovered charas, 10 grams was separated as a sample. Nisar Ahmad, S.I. Took into possession the remaining charas through memo Exh.P.B and prepared complaint Exh. P.A/1, on which formal F.I.R Exh. P.A was registered. On 22-7-2003 Pervaiz Masih was arrested after dismissal of his pre-arrest bail petition.
The investigation of the case was completed and challan against both the accused/appellants was submitted in the Court. The trial Court framed the charge which was denied by the appellants.
Sealed sample parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. S.I. Nisar Ahmad, P.W.4 supported the prosecution story as narrated by him in his complaint Exh.P.A/1. The prosecution evidence was closed by tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.D.
4. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations and claimed their innocence. In answer to question as to why this case why the P.Ws. Deposed against him, Pervaiz Masih stated as under: - "I am vehicle driver. Police often demanded free service and without any payment from me. I denied mostly time. Police have grudge against me due to not providing free service. One week prior to this F.I.R, I was standing in Bus Stand Gojra. Police tried to apprehend me and Victor Masih interfered who was apprehended by the police and taken to police station City Gojra and there he was kept for one week. After 15 days I came to know that the instant case has been lodged against me and .Victor my co-accused. I was granted prearrest bail by this Honourable Court and on 22-7- 2003 I was arrested by the police upon withdrawal of my pre-arrest bail petition and next day I was sent to judicial lock-up. All the P.Ws are police officials, hence they have deposed against me falsely just to strengthen the prosecution case."
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants have been falsely involved in this case due to enmity of Pervaiz Masih with the police. The learned counsel contends that no public witness was associated in the recovery proceedings by the prosecution, therefore, the evidence of police witnesses is not sufficient to convict the appellant. The learned counsel further submits that Pervaiz Masih appellant was arrested by the police later on falsely. In the last, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that if this Court is not convinced for acquittal of the appellants, he prayed for reduction of sentence.
6, The appeals have beep opposed by the learned counsel for the State who supported the impugned judgment.
2. We have heard both the learned counsel ahd examined the record. ViGtor Masih, appellant was apprehended at the spot while Pervaiz Masih, appellant was succeeded to flee away, who was arrested when his pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the trial Court. Both the accused failed to produce any evidence that they had any enmity with the police. If Pervaiz Masih, appellant had any dispute with the police then why the police had taken Victor Masih to the police station and left Pervaiz Masih when they quarreled at Bus Stand. The police officials are as good witnesses as any witness from public. The trial Court has already taken a lenient view while awarding lesser sentence of six years'. R.I. The judgment of the learned trial Court is well- reasoned which does not warrant any interference. Resultantly, in view of the above, these appeals are dismissed having no force. f