' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM- UZ-ZAMAN, J.-Appellant Allah Dad was tried in case F.I.R. No,33 dated 14- 2-2000 registered under section 9 (b) of Control of "'Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at police Station Saddar, Sargodha by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sargodha who vide judgment dated 5-8-2003 convicted the appellant under section 9 (b) of the ibid Act ahd sentenced him to three years R.I. As well as to pay a fine of Rs, 10,000 or in default whereof to further undergo three months' imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Was also extended in favour of the appellant. Hence the instant appeal.
2. Succinctly the prosecution case as narrated in the Fj.I.R. Exh. PA/1 registered upon the statement Exh. PA of Mukhtar Ahmad A.S-I. P.W.l reads as follows:- "Today I was present at Chak N0.88/SB along with Muhammad Iqbal, Akhtar Hussain, Muhammad Safdar, Abdul Ghaffar, Khalid Amir, Zafarullah constables in connection with checking of drug sellers on official vehicle driven by Inayat Ullah constable. An informant informed that a person had been selling Charas on the northern side of Abadi who could be arrested if raid had been conducted. I along with companions reached there. A person whose name was disclosed thereafter as Allah Dad son of Muhammad Hayat attempted to slip way on seeing the police party.
He was apprehended with the help of companions. One kilogram Charas was recovered from a plastic bag which was in his right hand. 6 grams Charas was separated for chemical analysis and 2 separable parcels were prepared and sealed. Two separate parcels were made of weight 50 grams, 200 grams which were taken into possession. On personal search from the side pocket of accused 2 notes of Rs,50 denomination, 10 notes of Rs,10 denomination and 10-notes of Rs,5 denomination recovered from there which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. On interrogation accused told that he is addict of Charas and sell it. Allah Dad accused has committed offence under Articles 3 /4 Prohibition . (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Complaint is being sent through Muhammad Safdar constable. Information be given about the number of case after registration of F.I.R. And permission , be granted for investigation. "
3. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset did not challenge the conviction of the appellant and had prayed for reduction in the sentence on the ground that appellant was minor and first offender.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. Upon a secret information about the sale of narcotics by appellant on 14-2-2000 Mukhtar- Ahmad A.S-I. P.W.l along with Muhammad Iqbal FC P.W.2 and others conducted raid and apprehended the appellant. From the possession of the appellant Charas weighing one kilogram was also recovered. Before the trial Court both the said witnesses while supporting the prosecution case unanimously narrated the circumstances under which raid was conducted and one kilogram charas was recovered from the appellant. They were subjected to lengthy and searching cross- examination and we have observed that both of them remained steadfast and there is nothing in their statements to doubt their credibility or to show that the said witnesses had any malice or grouse against the appellant to falsely implicate him in this case. No doubt, both the witnesses are police officials but it is well settled that a police officials is as good a witness as any other person and his statement can safely be relied upon if the same is not tainted with any malice or mala fide.
The evidence of both the recovery witnesses is persuasive in nature and rings true and in the light of the same we see no force in the instant appeal.
6. As far quantum of sentence of appellant is concerned, record of this case reveals that during the pendency of trial appellant was got medically examined by the Court through medical board to determine his age. The report submitted by the Board reveals that on the. Day of examination i.e,29-7-2002 appellant was 19 years of age which means that on the day of occurrence i.e, 14-2- 2000 appellant was only 16/17 years of age. Similarly, record of this case is absolutely silent about any criminal history of the appellant and we find force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that it was the first offence committed by the appellant. Keeping in view the youth of appellant in the circumstances of this case, we are persuaded to take a lenient view qua the sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to two years' R.I,, with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, appellant shall pay the amount of fine on the same terms and conditions as fixed by the trial Court.