S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J.--This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 19.09.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sahiwal whereby the appellant was found guilty of keeping possession of 2 k.g. of charas. Convicted accordingly and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine amounting to Rs, 50,000/- and in default thereof to undergo S.I. for six months.
2. According to the prosecution story on receipt of spy information that a person was selling charas at Lahore Broast Chowk on a motorcycle, police party lead by Muhammad Islam, SI proceeded to the place of occurrence apprehended the appellant and recovered 2 k.g. of charas from him. On search of his person Rs, 380/- were recovered from his right side pocket. The motorcycle and charas were taken into possession. Two packets of 10 grams of charas were separated from the bulk for chemical analysis.
3. On denial of charge by the appellant, the prosecution produced 5 witnesses to prove the charge.
4. Ijaz Ahmad, ASI, PW. 1 gave account of the facts leading to recovery of charas as given in complaint Ex.PB on the basis of which FIR Ex.PB/1 was recorded. Muhammad Amin, PW.2 carried the sealed parcel to the office of chemical examiner. Asghar Ali, PW.3 is scribe of FIR, Ex.PB/1.
Muhammad Zubair, SI, PW.4 conducted the investigation. He prepared the rough site-plan Ex.PC.
Muhammad Islam, SI, PW.5 is complainant in, this case. He reiterated the facts given in the FIR.
5. To the question as to why this case against him and why the PWs made statements against him, the accused replied:-- "It is a false case. Recovery is fake and foisted at the instance of one Mst. Razia wife of Muhammad Younis Constable who remained posted with Muhammad Islam S.I, PW. 5 of this case. On my information Muhammad Younis Constable was booked and challaned in cases of narcotics. Mst Razia Bibi, wife of Muhammad Younis constable with mala fide intention and collaboration with the police manoeuvred the present case in vengeance and arranged charas and thereafter was planted upon me. During investigating this fact came into the knowledge of Muhammad Zubair SI PW. 4 who tried to arrest Mst. Razia Bibi, on actual culprit, but she got her pre-arrest bail from the Court of learned Sessions Judge and also filed a petition u/S. 22-A Cr.P.C. and due to this fact the I.O. did not arrest her rather challaned me in this case. The witnesses are inimical towards me due to their soft corner with their fellow officials Muhammad Younis Constable and they not only falsely booked me in this case but also deposed falsely and inimically against me. There is no any private PW in this case despite availability of witness from the public and the proceeding according to the evidence are self contradictory. One parcel containing 10 grams of Charas was sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination and report and there is no evidence of either selling or that of proceeds money. The case is false and full of doubts."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the PWs did not make statements consistent to the story mentioned in the FIR. The contradictions given by them in their statements make them unworthy of credit. The recovery was foisted against the appellant. Even if for any reason, the contentions of the appellant were not believed, he was entitled to concession and lenient view in awarding punishment being first offender. It was urged that the recovery was violative of law laid down in Section 103, Cr.P.C. and no explanation has been given for not joining any private witness to witness the recovery. It was maintained that sample of 10 grams were separated and sent to Chemical Examiner, therefore, at the most the appellant was liable for punishment for the said quantity.
7. Conversely learned D.P.G. defended the impugned judgment on the grounds mentioned therein.
8. We have carefully gone through the evidence and were unable to find any contradiction in statements of PWs which may prove fatal for the charge. Since the trial was conducted under Special Law namely Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, therefore, plea of private witnesses having not been taken to witness the recovery is not available to the appellant. Even otherwise, on receipt of spy information, it becomes difficult for the police officers to arrange private witnesses to witness the recovery. The police officials are equally competent witnesses and safe reliance can be placed on them. Nothing could come on the record to show to animosity of any one of the PWs against the appellant. The grounds mentioned by the accused for his false implication exist on file just in the shape of contentions. We held that findings of the learned trial Court with regard to commission of the offence by the appellant are unexceptional.
9. The appellant however is first offender with no previous criminal history, therefore, while maintaining the conviction we reduce sentence of R.I. for 5 years to R.I. for 4 years and maintain the sentence with regard to fine. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of.