' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This appeal assails the judgment dated 7-7-2001 passed by the learned Additional District judged, Mianwali, convicting the appellant under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, sentencing him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs,6000 and in default thereof, to further undergo two years' R.I. He was, however, given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Gravament of the charge, as it appears from the F.I.R. Is that on 22-12.1999 at about 4-00 p.m. In the area of Bairuli within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar Mianwali, Abdur Razzaq, S.-I. Along with police contingent, comprising two lady constables as well raided Baithak of the appellant where he was waiting for his customers. Mst. Ruqiya. Bibi and Atta Ullah appellant, were found present out side the Baithak. Mst. Ruqiya Bibi remained standing there but Atta Ullah fled away and while running at some distance threw charas and fire-arm weapons, thereafter, taking entry into sugar cane crop. Charas was weighted as three kilograms which was made into parcel by taking 10 grams out of each packet and making it, as well, into a separate parcel. Fire-arm weapons were also taken into possession. Whereafter parcel containing recovered Charas, along with sample parcel and a complaint was sent to police station for registration of case which was formally registered vide F.I.R. No .414 dated 22-12-1999 under section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 with Police Station Sadder Mianwali. After investigations, challan against appellant, was submitted before the Sessions Court, for his trial and decision. In the Court where challan was sent, charge against the appellant was framed on 11-10-2000 regarding recovery of charas, to which he did not plead guilty and asserted alibi of being away to Dawood Khail in connection with his personal work, at the time of occurrence. He also pleaded that his wife Mst. Ruqiya Bibi was involved in the false case by the police. Contest of the appellant, led to examination of four witnesses by the prosecution. Out of the five witnesses named, one Muhammad Amin, A.S-I, was given up.
3. P.W.1 Mushtaq, Moharrir, Head Constable deposed that he drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA on receiving complaint from Abdul Razzaq, S.-I. He also stated that he received four parcels of Charas containing three parcels of specimen and one of the Charas recovered, which were sealed. Parcels containing samples were delivered by him to Ghulam Muhammad, Constable No,701 for its transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner in the sealed condition. P.W.2 Ghulam Muhammad, Constable, received the parcel of samples and transmitted those to Chemical Examiner office, on the following day, intact.
4. P.W. 3 Muhammad Yaqoob, A.S.-I. Is recovery witness who stated that on 22-12-1999 he was present in the company of Abdul Razzaq, S.-I. When they conducted a raid at the house of the appellant, on receiving secret information. He also deposed that Atta Ullah accused and his wife Mst. Ruqiya Bibi were present in front of the appellant Baithak of his house who on seeing the raiding party, ran away throwing the Charas weighing 3 Kgs. Exh.P.1. According to this witness, the Investigating Officer took into possession of the Charas vide recovery memo Exh. PB and arrested Mst. Ruqiya Bibi wife of the appellant, at the spot. P.W.4, Abdul Razzaq, S.-I. Materially corroborated the prosecution version and stated that charas weighing 3 Kgs. Exh.P1 was recovered from the appellant who had thrown it alongwith fire-arm weapons. He deposed to have drafted the complainant Exh.P.C. And prepared rough site-plan of the place of occurrence. This witness produced report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PE with chailan, for trial of the appellant. Thereafter statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded who denied recovery of Charas and answered the question as to why this case made against him and as to why the P.Ws.
Deposed against you, in the manner:-- ' "The P.Ws. Are members of the police force who made false statements against me and the case was lodged against me by Abdul Razzaq S.-I./S.H.O. To show his efficiency. On the day of occurrence, I was not present at my house and was present at Daud Khel in connection with my personal work. Abdul Razzaq harassed my wife Mst. Ruqiya Bibi and even brought her to Police Station Saddar, Mianwali, where he also involved the poor lady in a false case."
' His answer does not demonstrate any ill-motive on the part of the head of the raiding party or any its members, for his false implication. The appellant produced three witnesses in defence. .DW.1, Hamid Ullah, Moharrir H.C. Was summoned along with register Roznamcha of police station Saddar Mianwali for the year, 1999, to show that Abdul Razzaq, S.-I. Left police station on 22-12-1999 at 2-00 p.m. And came back to police station at 9-00 p.m. DW.2 Atta Ullah son of Shah Wali deposed that the appellant was known to him and he on 22-12-1999 was present at the house of Khalas Khan from 2 to 4-00 p.m. DW.3, Aslam Khan, made a statement that he is a neighbour of the appellant.
On 22-12-1999, according to him, son of the appellant told him that the police came to their house and arrested his mother for production of the appellant. He also deposed that he went to police station and met S.H.O. Who informed him that he has received an application against the appellant so he should produce him whereafter his wife will be released. This Witness also stated that mother of the appellant told him that he had gone to Daud Khel, therefore, he went there at 8- 00 p.m. And brought the appellant to police station at 9-30 p.m. According to him, Abdul Razzaq, S.-I. Told that he would release wife of the appellant next morning but on the next day it was learnt that both of them have been involved in the case registered by the police.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradictions and discrepancies between the statement of prosecution witnesses, as such, convictions of the appellant cannot be maintained on such evidence. He further contends that it is clear from the statement of DW.2 that Abdul Razzaq, S.I. Left the police station at 2-00 p.m. Whereas he stated that he left police station at 9-00 a.m. This contradiction shows that the story of the police is false. He further contends that there is no independent corroboration of the statements of the recovery witnesses who are police employees and subordinates of the head of the raiding party and in absence of any independent private corroboration, conviction of the appellant cannot be allowed to be sustained. He further urged that prosecution story is unnatural because there is no reason to throw the alleged Charas recovered while escaping from the spot, if at all he was in possession of it. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that case in hand is absolutely false and has been set up just to falsely implicate the appellant, to show efficiency.
6. Mr. Tahir Mehmood Qureshi, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, refuted the submissions of the appellant, supported the judgment of the trial Court and urged that the case of prosecution is proved beyond any shadow of doubt. He further contends that recovery of Charas weighing 3 Kgs. Could not be shattered by the defence in spite of lengthy cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. It has also been submitted on behalf of the State that there is no material contradiction between the statement of P.Ws. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the appellant has neither asserted nor it is proved on the file that any of the raiding party had any ill- motive to falsely involve the appellant in some false case. According to him, no police official will set up a false case against innocent person and that too, without any reason. He also submitted that section 103, Cr.P.C. Is not applicable to the case of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which in itself is a complete Code providing entire mechanism for proceeding against the culprits.
He also submits that it was not necessary, under law, for the Investigating Officer to join in the investigation private persons, as generally people avoid becoming witnesses, in such like cases.
7. We have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the entire record minutely. All the four P.Ws. Produced by the prosecution have supported recovery of 3 Kgs., Charas from the appellant who have not been proved to have any malice of enmity against him. Incriminating statements of the prosecution witnesses, on Oath, proved beyond any shadow of doubt, recovery of the above referred Charas/ narcotic substance from the appellant. It is not shown as to why police would make fake recovery just to show its efficiency by planting a huge quantity of Charas, value which runs into lacs of rupees. Police if at all, was under any pressure which is not proved on the file, could show it by planting lesser quantity of Charas or some other narcotics of cheaper value. Purchase of 3 Kgs. Charas by a sub-inspector of police in Grade 15, is not imaginable and that too, for false plantation, against a person, with whom he had no enmity.
8. Contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are so minor that those neither can be considered to have vitiated the trial nor those make the recovery from the appellant, doubtful. Such minor discrepancies, if any, are bound to happen by lapse of time. The incident in the case in hand, took place on 22-12-1999 and statement of the P.Ws. Were recorded on 28-3-2001 nearly after 15 months, as such, we are not ready to Bank upon such minor contradiction to set aside the judgment, impugned, which is in consonance with the evidence on the file.
9. Recovery from the appellant of Charas weighing 3 Kgs. As noted above, is proved and has also been certified by the chemical examiner through his report Exh.PE, as Charas. Consistent statement of all the P. Ws. Who have repeatedly been held as reliable, like private witnesses unless those are proved to have some enmity against the accused, or any interest to depose falsely, implicating of the accused, reference can be made to the cases of Maulvi Ghulam Rasool v. Administrator Auqaf, Sindh and another (1976 SCM R 73), Sikandar and 2 others v. The State (PLD 1978 SCM R 185), Gul Nawaz v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1730), Feroze Shah v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 1470) and Mirza Shah v.
The State (1992 SCM R 1475); do not leave any doubt about prosecution case and thus, we find that the trial Court has rightly relied on the statement of P.Ws. For the decision, impugned in this appeal.
10. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has.
Rightly concluded the charge against the appellant and has rightly convicted him. This appeal has no substance in it and is consequently dismissed.