' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.---The appellant, Raham Dad, was tired by Judge Special Court, (Narcotics), Gujrat, in case F.I.R. No, 285 dated 17-6-2000, registered at Police Station Sadar Jalalpur Jattan, for the offence under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at the instance of complainant (P. W.3), Muhammad Azam, S.I, C.I.A. Staff, Lala Musa, for the recovery of Charas weighing I kilogram, from his possession. The learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 15-12- 2000, convicted the appellant under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced him to seven years' R.I along with fine of Rs,1,00,000 and in default whereof to further suffer one and a half years" R.I. It was further ordered that the sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence, given to the appellant, in the connected case F.I.R. No, 286 dated 17-6-2000, decided on the same day, (subject-matter of Criminal Appeal No,284/2001.) The appellant was also given benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. The appellant, through this appeal, has assailed the legality and correctness of his conviction and sentence.
2. The relevant facts are that on the receipt of spy information, a raid was conducted, on the pointation of the informer the appellant was apprehended and Charas weighing 1 kilogram was recovered from him, which was being held by him in his right hand. Fifteen (15) grams of Charas was separated as sample for chemical analysis. The sample of Charas as well as the remaining Charas were sealed and both the parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.PB.
3. The complainant (P.W,3), Muhammad Azam, S.-I., drafted the complainant (Exh. PA) and sent the same to police station through Muhammad Asif, Constable, for registration of formal F.I.R. He drew rough sketch (Exh.PC) of the place of recovery, recorded the statements of P.Ws. And after the completion of investigation, got the accused challaned,
4. The appellant was charge-sheeted on 2-12-2000, to which he not guilty and claimed trial.
5. P.W.1, Muhammad Tufail, Duty Officer, received the complaint (Exh.PA) at the police station, on 17- 6-2000 and on the same date, he drafted formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA/1). He was not cross-examined, although opportunity was given.
6. P W. 2, Amj ad Iqbal, Head Constable, was member of the raiding party. He fully supported the complainant. He is also an attesting witness of the recovery memo. (Exh.PB).
7. P.W.3, Muhammad Azam, S.-I. (complainant), fully supported his complaint.
8. P.W.4, Muzhar Iqbal, Moharrir, received two sealed parcels said to contain Charas, on 17-6-2000, which were kept by him in safe custody in Malkhana and on 23-6-2000, he handed over the sample parcel of Charas to Muhammad Ashraf, Constable, for its onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore.
9. P.W.5 Muhammad Ashraf, constable, received the sample parcel, on 23-6-2000 and deposited the same on the same day in the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. He was not cross-examined, although opportunity was given.
10. The prosecution tendered in evidence report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PD), gave up Nawazish Ali, Constable, as unnecessary and closed its case.
11. The appellant, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Answered question No, 4, that why this case against him and why the P.Ws. Had deposed against him, as follows: ' "The false case has been registered against me. The factual position is that I was involved in my wife's murder case. I faced trial in that case and convicted. After undergoing the sentence, I was released from Jail few months prior to the registration of this case. I started living at Rawalpindi with my brother, who is running a Dairy Farm there. I used to visit Village Daulat Nagar to see my another brother, living in the village. When my in-laws came to know about my release from jail and about arrival in village Daulat Nagar, they due to enmity and grudge with me, in connivance with the police got me implicated in this false case. Earlier I have never been involved in such-like cases. Nothing was recovered from me. The P.Ws. Being subordinate/police officials have deposed against me falsely only to please their superiors."
12. The appellant did not appear as his own witness under section 340(2) Cr.P.C.. However, he produced three witnesses in defence.
13. D.W.1, Ghulam Ali, resident of Gulzar-e-Quaid Colony, Rawalpindi, stated that the accused lived along with his brother Fazal Dad, near his residence and on 15-6-2000, in the evening, brother-in- law of the accused gave him a message on telephone to inform the accused about the death of son of his sister in village Daulat Nagar, which message was passed on to the accused. In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that he did not appear before the police in defence of the accused and explained that he was not called by the police. He further stated that he did not know whether, on 17-6-2000, the accused was apprehended by the police in village Daulat Nagar or that Charas was recovered from him.
14. D.W.2, Muhammad Arshad, resident of village Aadowal, stated that the accused Rahman Dad was his brother-in-law (wife's brother) and that he lived in Gulzar-e-Quaid Colony, Rawalpindi, he was running business of Dairy Farm along with his brother Fazal Dad. He further stated that on 15- 6-2000, his minor son died and he conveyed this information on telephone to the accused through his neighbour Ghulam Ali, on the receipt of which, on the next day, accused came to the village Aadowal and attended the funeral of his son in his village and then proceeded to village Daulat Nagar to see his brother Karim Dad. In the cross-examination, he admitted 'that he did not appear before the police for making statement in defence of the accused and explained that he was not asked by the police.
15. D.W.3, Muhammad Azam, resident of Daulat Nagar, stated that the accused and his brother Fazal Dad were residents of Rawalpindi and were doing the business of Dairy Farm. He further stated that on 16-6-2000, the accused came to village Daulat Nagar for attending the funeral of son of his sister in village Aadowal and the accused was falsely involved in the present case by the police under the influence of the relatives of the accused's deceased wife, for whose murder the accused had previously been convicted. He admitted in the cross-examination that he did not appear before the police in defence of the accused and that the complainant Muhammad Azam, S.I and other P.Ws. Had no personal enmity with the accused.
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the State and have also seen the record with their help.
17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was involved falsely in a mala fide manner in the present case, no independent witness was associated in the recovery proceedings, hence they are doubtful, the complainant and the I.0 is the same person, that there are material contradictions in the statements of recovery witnesses and the appellant is liable to be acquitted. The contentions have been opposed.
18. Non-association of public witness in the recovery proceedings, under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is not fatal to the prosecution case. Under section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997, the provisions of section 103 Cr.P.C. Stand excluded. Even otherwise, P.W.1, Amjad Iqbal, stated in the cross-examination that some people or passersby were asked by the S.- I. To join the recovery proceedings but they refused. Furthermore, police officials are as good witnesses as any other. Their statements cannot be discarded merely because they are police officials. The contradictions pointed out in the statements of P.W.2 & P.W.3 are not material. The statements of recovery witnesses (P.W.2 & P.W.3) are consistent and confidence-inspiring. The recovery stands fully established. There A was no enmity of the recovery witnesses with the accused to suggest false implication. The presence of the appellant, on the day of occurrence, in the village stands admitted. Statements of the D.Ws are immaterial. They do not establish the innocence. It is settled law that complainant can investigate the case, unless his mala fide or prejudice caused to the accused, is established. In the present case, no such evidence has been brought on the record.
19. In view of the above mentioned we are of the opinion that the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.