' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Appellant Muhammad Akram alias Shakir was tried along with Abid Ali (in the case registered vide F.I.R. No 576 dated 14-8-1998, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad). The learned Additional Sessions Judge Faisalabad, vide his judgment, dated 15-9-2001, while acquitting the co-accused Abid Ali, convicted the appellant under section 9-C of the of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,50,000 in default whereof he was further directed to undergo one year imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr .P.C. Was extended to him.
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Briefly stated is that while under arrest in another criminal case (vide F.I.R. No,565 dated 10-8-1998 under sections 6/9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad), appellant disclosed that he had purchased sixty kilograms of Charas from co-accused Abid All part of which had already been disposed of and on his pointation sixteen Kg of Charas (in sixteen packets) was recovered from a shop rented by the appellant. Ten grams of charas from each packet was separated and sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis and the report received was positive (Exh.PD).
3. Appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution story ana in answer to a question as to why this case against him, he explained as under:-- ' "I am a poor man and labourer. I have no concern with the property from where the recovery has been made by the police. Neither the same is on rent with me nor belonged to me. Nothing has been recovered from my possession. Police arrested me in this case 8/9 days prior to this alleged occurrence. S.H.O. And complainant of this case compelled me to pay huge bribery, which I could not arrange. On 11-8-1998 police recovered Gas Silendar from the area of C-Block Ghulam Muhammad Abad Faisalabad out of which 75 Maunds Charas was recovered but police registered case F.I.R. No,569 dated 10-8-1998 under section 6/9(c) showing 55 maunds 8 kilo and 150 grams of Charas. Rest of Charas i.e, 19 maunds was not mentioned in that case. Police out of that recovered falsely planted against me this recovery. No private P.W. Has come forward in order to attest the recovery. I have been falsely involved in this case due to not fulfilling the lust of bribery of police. I submit photo copy of F.I.R. No,569 as Mark-A."
' He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. The prosecution, during trial, examined five witnesses. P.WL is Muhammad Arshad Constable. According to him he received sixteen sealed parcels for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner which he did and obtained the report. Khalid Hussain ex-S.-I. Appeared as P.W.2 who drafted Exh.PA(F.I.R.). P.W.3 is Mateeur Rehman who was present in police station when the appellant was being interrogated by S.-I.
Inayatullah. He stated that, in his presence, appellant disclosed that he had purchased sixty Kgs of Charas from Abid Ali co-accused and that he could lead to the recovery of the said Charas; that on his pointation, the said Charas was recovered in sixteen packets and then ten grams of charas was separated from each packet and samples were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner.
P.W4. Is Inayatullah S.-I. Who interrogated the appellant. He corroborated the statement of P.W.3 on all material particulars. Zafar Iqbal appeared as P.W.5. He was Incharge Malkhana and stated that on being handed over sixteen parcels, he kept them in safe custody and subsequently delivered those to Muhammad Arshad Constable for onward transmission to the Office of the Chemical Examiner.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been involved falsely; that there is no public witness to support to prosecution case; that the prosecution had failed to produce any rent deed to indicate that shop from where the Charas in question was recovered was under his tenancy.
5. Learned State counsel, while defending the impugned judgment, submitted that the prosecution case though consists of police officials yet they are independent witnesses and no enmity was ever suggested by the appellant. Their statements are corroborated by the Chemical Examiner's report(Exh.PD).
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. The fact that the appellant was under arrest in F.I.R. No,565 of 1998 of Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Ahad has not been denied by the appellant. It was during interrogation in the said case that he led to the recovery of narcotic subject matter of this appeal. The said case property i.e, sixteen Kg of Charas was produced during trial and Chemical Examiner's report (Exh.PD) confirms that it was narcotic (Charas). Although there is no public witness to support the recovery but in the facts and circumstances of this case their statement inspire confidence, firstly, because P.W.3 and P.W.4. Are natural witnesses as appellant was in their custody when he disclosed and led to the recovery of narcotics in question aad, secondly, neither during investigation or in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant ever suggested any enmity with any of the prosecution witnesses to warrant an inference that the prosecution was motivated by malice. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that no rent deed was produced by the prosecution to show that the shop from which Charas was recovered was on rent with the appellant, is not tenable because in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant never disputed that the shop in question was not in his tenancy. There was nothing to prevent the appellant to produce witnesses in defence i.e, the persons of the locality who could have come and depose in support of this claim of innocence. Not to speak to produce witnesses in defence, the appellant himself never appeared in his own defence. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.