' M. NAEEMULLAH KHAN SHERWANI, J.-Following facts are taken from the judgment.
' Nisar Ahmad Ghauri appellant was on physical remand with the police in case F.I.R. No, 157 dated 30-3-1999 under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order No,4 of 1979. During course of interrogation he made a disclosure that he could lead to recovery of narcotic substances from Shah Noor Studio. Accordingly he voluntarily led to'the police party headed by Muhammad Bashir Niazi S.-I./S.H.O. P>S. Iqbal Town, Lahore to a room of Shah Noor Studio and got recovered 20 kilograms of Charas (P.l) and 4 kilograms of opium (P.2) which were taken into possession by him vide memo (Ex.PA). He drew up complaint (Ex.PB/1), despatched the same to the police station through Naveed constable for formal registration of a case. On receipt thereof Muhammad Azhar Saqib S.-I. Recorded formal F.I.R. (Ex.PB) correctly without any addition or substraction on his part.
2. Muhammad Bashir Niazi, S.-I./ S.H.O. (P.W.5) adopted usual mode of investigation and submitted challan in the Court for trial of the accused in accordance with law. The trial Court framed charge against the accused under sections 6/9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order No,4 of 1979. It was put to the appellant. He refuted the charge in its entirety and claimed to be tried.
3, The trial Court directed the prosecution to adduce the best possible evidence available within its power and domain to substantiate charge against the appellant. For appreciation of prosecution evidence brief reference to the statements of witnesses is being made.
' Muhammad Riaz constable (P.W.l) transmitted the parcel in the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore on 14-4-1998 which was handed over to him by Muhammad Arif Moharrir (P.W.2). Nasir Mehmood A.S-I. (P.W.3) testified to the factum of recovery of Charas and Opium. Muhammad Azhar Saqib, S.-I. On receipt of complaint (Ex.PB/1) reduced into writing formal F.I.R. (Ex.PB) whereas Muhammad Bashir Niazi S.-I./S.H.O. (P.W.5) headed the raiding party and completed the investigation.
4. Reports of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PD&PE) were tendered in evidence by the learned SPP. As no more evidence was required to be produced, so he declared the prosecution case close. Appellant was thereafter examined under the relevant provisions of section 342 Cr.P.C. To seek his explanation with regard to evidence produced against him to elicit his defence if any. His statement is required to be reproduced in extenso.
' "All the P.Ws. Are police witnesses and are under the 1.0 who registered the case against three other accused under the same allegation but all the other three accused namely Zahir Shah, Noor Zamir and Khalid have been acquitted by this Hon'ble Court. The narcotics were recovered from one Zahid Shah from tribal area and the quantity was huge one but the police let off him after taking illegal gratification from him and in order to complete the police proceedings I was involved and alleged Charas and opium was planted upon me".
' He opted not to appear as witness in his defence under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He produced no evidence in defence. He was found guilty of the charge and punished as under :-- Under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 To undergo imprisonment for life and a. Fine of Rs,50,000 or in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that evidence in its entirety has not been appreciated in its true perspective by the trial Court and as such requires reappraisal by this Court, that statements of Nasir Mehmood A.S-I. (P.W.3) and Muhammad Bashir Niazi S.-I. (P.W.5) are at variance with each other and have been wrongly believed by the trial Court, that no independent respectable person of the .Locality was associated in the recovery proceedings which makes the recoveries doubtful that room from where recoveries were made was not locked or bolted that the samples of narcotic substances were despatched to the office of Chemical Examiner on 14-4-1998 which nullifies value of the reports of Chemical Examiner. Furthermore, there was no notification of Chemical Examiner according to law; that in any case sentence awarded to the appellants is severe, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has not been extended to him and same may be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the State opposes tooth and nail this appeal.
7. We have consciously heard and deeply considered respective arguments of learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record with their able assistance. We have X-rayed each and every item of evidence. Whole quantum of our survey of evidence reveals that the appellant was already in police custody in connection with investigation of some other case. He voluntarily made a disclosure ' regarding the narcotic substances which were available in a room of Shah Noor Studio, He led the police party to the place of recovery in pursuance of the disclosure made by him from where , Muhammad Bashir Niazi S.-I. (P.W.5) recovered 20" kilograms of Charas and four kilograms of opium in the presence of Nasir Mehmood A.S-I. (P.W.3). As the disclpsure made by the appellant is relevant under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, so the proceedings initiated by the police are bona fide and genuine. Provisions of Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 clearly excludes application of section 103 Cr.P.C. To the cases under the said Act. The appellant is resident of Chak No, 10, Bhula Garhi, Tehsil Pattoki, District Kasur whereas he was in custody of P.S. Iqbal Town Lahore. Distance between residence of the appellant and P.S. Iqbal Town, is not less than 30 miles. He was not previously known to the police officials. They had absolutely no ill will, grudge, grouse, malice or spite against the appellant. The police had no earthly reason to involve him in such a serious case. The appellant badly failed to demonstrate in any manner that he is victim of police excesses or atrocities in any manner. He did not produce an atom's weight of evidence in his defence to establish his innocence or stand point that the narcotic substances stood recovered from one Zahid Shah but the same were planted upon him. Defence theory propounded by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. does not ring true and is devoid of merits. We have narrowly examined statements Of Nasir Mehmood A.S-I. (P.W.3) and Muhammad Bashir Niaz, S.-I. (P.W.5). Argument of learned counsel for the appellant that recoveries were made from one and the same room is fallacious. Recoveries at the instance of appellant had been made from some other room. It is clearly mentioned in cross examination of Muhammad Bashir Niazi (P.W.5) that recoveries from the appellant and Noor Zamir Khan were effected from different rooms and not from one room. There is no dispute regarding material facts of the case.
Petty discrepancies in the statements of witnesses can be easily brushed aside. Police officials are as good witnesses as other witnesses. Provisions of section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 reveals that presumption of truth is to be attached to the allegations until contrary is proved. There are no serious defects or flaws in die prosecution version. We find that the prosecution story is genuine and legitimate.
8. As regards reports of Chemical Examiner it may be seen that in this case analysis of the narcotic substances were done by the Chemical Examiner, Punjab who is presumed to be a notified official of the Government. At no stage of the trial any objection was raised qua reports of the Chemical Examiner. Delay simpliciter in dispatching parcels to the Chemical Examiner cannot annihilate the evidentiary value in absence of attending circumstances casting doubt on the genuineness of recoveries. In the instant case Chemical Examiner was not summoned by the Court or the appellant. On backside of the report of Chemical Examiner detail of test performed for analysis purposes has been furnished. There is nothing to doubt the credibility of the reports. Police could not afford to bear the cost of huge quantity of narcotic substances recovered from the appellant.
Guilt of the appellant shines like a sun, so we have no other option but to dismiss this appeal.
9. Correct it is that benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was not accorded to the appellant. Accordingly we order that benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Will be extended to the appellant.