' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 3- 5-2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore whereby he convicted the appellants under section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs,50,000 each. In default of payment of fine they will further undergo six month's R.I. Each. Both of them were extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. No, 533 of 1997, dated 10-10-1997 registered under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 and sections 6/9 of C.N.S.A., 1997, is that pursuant to spy information, Abdul Ghafoor, A.S.-I., arranged a picket in front of A.M.
Studio, where a vehicle No,PRL 4073 being driven by Bahawal Khan accused, was intercepted. On search of vehicle 10 packets of Charas weighing 12-1/2 k.Gs. Was recovered from underneath the driving seat. The co-accused Habbiullah was sitting in the rear cabin of the vehicle. 11-packets of charas weighing 11 Kgs. And some bottles of syrup of medicine were recovered from him. The said A.S-I. Prepared complaint Exh.PD/1 and on the basis of that complaint formal F.I.R. PD/2 was registered. After completion of investigation, both the accused were found guilty and challaned them to face the trial.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as five witnesses P.W.1 Sagheer Ahmed, constable and P.W. 2 Kabir Khan, constable are recovery witnesses of Memo. Exh. PA and Exh. PD. They proved the recovery memos. Munir Ahmed (P.W.3) deposed that he recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.PD/2 while Abdul Ghafoor, A.S.-I. (P.W.5) complainant and Mustafa Hassan, S I , appeared as Investigating Officer of this case. Both of them supported the prosecution version.
4. At the close of the prosecution case, statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution, professed innocence and claimed trial.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal contended that a false case has been cooked up against the appellants on account of their enmity with two persons namely Quwat Khan and Haji Gul, accused in case F.I.R. No,531/97, that there are discrepancies and glaring contradictions in the statements of the P.Ws., that recovery was effected by A.S.-I. And he is the complainant as well and keeping in view mandatory provisions of sections 21 and 22 of C.N.S.A., he was not competent to effect recovery and search the accused, and that the recovery was effected from a public place but no witness from the public was associated with the recovery proceedings which is in clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand supported the impugned judgment by reiterating the grounds of conviction contained therein.
7. We have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and caution. It appears that the evidence of the prosecution is very convincing and there was no cogent reason to involve the appellants in this case falsely. Pursuant to a raid conducted by police, both the accused were apprehended and a heavy quantity of narcotics was recovered from them. Such a huge stuff cannot be foisted upon falsely. Evidence of recovery in respect of quantity of narcotic substances recovered and sent for chemical analysis was consistently established by P.W. 1 and P.W.
2. The report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.PG with regard to recovered substance is also positive.
Other P.Ws. Too have supported the prosecution version. There may be some discrepancies or contradictions but the P.Ws. Remained consistent on material points. The accused/appellants have not alleged their enmity with the police officials nor any thing has been brought on record in this respect. The police officials are as good witnesses as anyone else.
' The accused in their statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In reply to question No,5 stated that on account of their enmity with one Quwat Khan and Haji Gul, they have been roped in this case, but no material has been brought on record to substantiate their plea. Mere assertion of the accused that they are innocent is of no consequence. The defence version advanced by the appellants appears to be an afterthought. The prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
8. Resultantly, this appeal has no merit and is dismissed. However, we have noticed that the appellants are previous non-convict. During cross-examination Abdul Ghafoor, A.S.-I. (P.W. 4) categorically admitted that appellants are not involved in any other criminal case of this nature nor they have any association with local drug trafficking gang. Therefore, keeping in view this factum, taking a lenient view, we reduce the sentence of the appellants from life imprisonment to seven years. However, sentence of fine and imprisonment in default shall remain intact. Both the appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382(b), Cr.P.C.