' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Through this judgment Criminal Appeal No,316-J of 2002 filed by Peter Masih alias Andras and Criminal Appeal No,317-J of 2002 filed by Yousaf Masih are disposed of as both of them arise out of the same judgment, dated 29-11-2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Okara.
2. Peter Masih alias Andras and Yousaf Masih were convicted for an offence under section 9(c) of CNSA 1997 vide judgment, dated 29-11-2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Okara and were sentenced to imprisonment for life each and a fine of Rs,50,000 each, in default whereof they were ordered to further undergo R.I. For one year each. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also awarded to both the appellants. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have challenged their Conviction and sentence through the present appeal.
2A. The allegation against the appellants is that on 21-11-1999 at 5-00 a.m. They were apprehended by a raiding police party and 9 Kg. Charas and 5 Kgs. Opium were recovered from Peter Masih while 9 Kgs. Charas and 1 Kg. Opium were recovered from Yousaf Masih and regarding this incident F.I.R. No,804/99 was recorded at Police Station A-Division, Okara under section 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2B. The charge was framed against the accused on 2-6-2000 to which they pleaded not guilty and professed their innocence.
3. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced four witnesses including P. W.1 Qamar Zia Constable, P.W.2 Abdul Rashid A.S.-I., P.W.3 Talib Hussain Moharrar and P.W.4 Mukhtar Ahmad S.-I.
After the close of prosecution case the accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and attributed the case to enmity. However, both the accused did not appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. At the conclusion of the trial both the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. Hence these criminal appeals before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset have contended that the prosecution case was false and fabricated as no independent witness from the public joined in the recovery proceedings and moreover there was no consistency in the statements of the P.Ws. Which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. As against this the. Learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the prosecution had successfully proved the charge against the appellants through the depositions of Abdul Rashid P.W,2 and P.W.4 Mukhtar Ahmad S,-I. Who had no previous enmity or grudge against the appellants. The learned State counsel further submitted that the quantity of narcotic recovered from the accused was huge, therefore, there could be no possibility of false implication or plantation. The learned State counsel finally argued that the chemical analysis proved that the stuff recovered from the accused was Charas and opium, therefore, the accused/appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record placed before us. There is no material discrepancy in the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.4. Both the above witnesses were police officials and had no enmity or grudge against the appellants to falsely implicate them. It is clear from the record that the appellants were apprehended on the fateful day on the basis of spy information which further rules out the possibility of false implication. It has been held time and again by the superior Courts that the police witnesses are as good as public witnesses. It has been noticed that generally people avoid to join the investigation of criminal cases, particularly narcotics cases as they are not interested in helping the police in such cases, therefore, the police officials are as good B witnesses as private persons if their statements are found to be Confidence inspiring. The evidence furnished by them as such cannot be rejected merely c on the ground that they are police officials. Even otherwise section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 furnishes a complete answer to the objection of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-inclusion of public witnesses. It is also worth- mentioning that P.W.2 and P.W.4 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing material came out in favour of the accused.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellants have not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. In this view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that both the appellants had been rightly convicted and sentenced. Accordingly their appeals are dismissed.