' M. NAEEMULLAH KHAN SHERWANI, J.---Rehmat Ullah son of Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Ijaz son of Sher Khan along with Manzoor Khan and Rab Nawaz were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court constituted under the Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Mianwali for retaining five kilograms of Charas each in their possession who found them guilty of the said charge through his judgment, dated 22-11-2002 convicted them under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs,2,00,000 (two lac) each di in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to them. However, the learned trial Court acquitted Manzoor Khan and Rab Nawaz accused of the charge.
2. By filing the instant appeal, Rehmat Ullah and Muhammad Ijaz convicts have approached this Court to call in question convictions and sentences passed against them.
3. The prosecution story as revealed through contents of F.I.R. And evidence is the following.
' On 16-2-2000 at about 10-00 a.m. Allah Yar Inspector C.I.A. (P.W.3) along with a contingent of police officials was available at Hassan Chowk. A car bearing Registration No,B-5260/Karachi carrying four persons came there. The police party signaled them to stop the car but they did not stop the same. The police party chased them and stopped car of the accused at Sargodha Road.
All the four persons started running. They were possessing one polythene bag each. Rehmat Ullah and Ijaz Ahmad were captured by the police while the remaining made good their escape. On personal search of the accused five kilograms of Charas were recovered from each accused 50 grams each were separated for chemical analysis and two sealed parcels were prepared.
Complaint (Exh. PA) was drawn up which was despatched to the police station through Abdul Aziz constable for formal registration of a case. On receipt of complaint (Exh.PA) Mehr Khan MHC (P. W.1) drew up formal F . I . R . (Exh.PA/1) without any addition or substraction on his part. After finalization of investigation challan against the accused was submitted.
4. The trial Court after observing -n the legal formalities framed charge against the accused. It was put to them to enable them to explain their position. They refuted the charge and claimed to 'be tried. Accordingly prosecution was directed to produce relevant evidence to substantiate charge against the appellants.
5. Muhammad Abdullah (P.W.2) was given two sealed parcels on 20-2-2001 by Mehr Khan Moharrir which he delivered in the office of Chemical Examiner, Rawalpindi on the following day. Allah Yar Inspector (P.W.3) is a potential witness of the incident. He described all details of occurrence and all acts, duties performed by him relating to arrest and recovery of narcotic substance from the appellants till submission of challan. Muhammad Aslam Inspector (P W.4) after completing investigation, submitted challan against the accused. Muhammad Yar Khan (P.W.6) testified to the factum of recovery of Charas from the appellants.
6. The learned D.D.A. After tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.P.G.), declared the prosecution case close.
7. Both the appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied correctness of the allegations and alleged their false involvement in the case. They opted not to make their statements on oath under section 340(2) in disproof of accusations brought against them. They produced no evidence in defence.
8. After due conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge pronounced verdict of guilt against the appellants as aforementioned.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that case against the appellants had been registered in false premises and all that has been asserted to by the complainant in the. F.I.R. Is a patent falsehood. Fake recovery of narcotic substance has been planted and evidence produced by the prosecution is not credit worthy. Adds that statements of the witnesses are at variance with each other and have been wrongly relied upon by the trial Court. No public witness was associated in the recovery proceedings. In the alternative he submits that sentence is severe and may be reduced to a reasonable extent.
10. Learned counsel for the State submits that prosecution has proved its case to the hilt against the appellants by production of witnesses who bore no animus against them. He supports judgment of the trial Court.
11. We have given our conscious considerations to the contentions raised by learned counsel for both the sides and perused the evidence. Whole quantum of our analysis of evidence reveals that both the eye-witnesses have fully supported the F.I.R. Version. Good deal of cross-examination was exacted upon them. From the evidence we find that the accused when asked to stop, indulged into a joint venture and accelerated speed of the car in which they were travelling with their co- accused and ultimately police became successful in capturing them while they were possessing five kilograms of Charas each. Their conduct along with spot arrest with the narcotic substance is like a mirror through which we can very well visualize not only the crime but criminals as well. Their spot arrest by all means is sufficient to exclude their false implication in the case. We consider prosecution version as legitimate. The witnesses had no earthy reason to involve them wrongly in a case of heinous nature. Since registration of case appellants have made no effort to prove their innocence through any measures.
12. Provisions of section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 clearly exclude the application of section B 103, Cr.P.C. To the cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances. Act, 1997, so non-joining of public witnesses in recovery) proceedings is not fatal to the prosecution case.
Police officials are as good witnesses as the other witnesses. Provisions' of section 29 ibid clearly reveal that presumption of truth is to be attached to the allegations until contrary is proved.
Statement of the witnesses are in line with the prosecution version and there is no dispute with regard to material facts of the case. We have no reasons to disagree with the meritorious conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence.
13. Now we advert to the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants. The appellants were arrested on 16-2-2001. They were convicted on 22-11-2002. Their appeal has been decided on 6-4- 2004. We find that sentence of ten years' R.I. Is bit severe. The appellants are not previous convicts and have never been accused of a crime of like nature in the past, so we are inclined to reduce their sentences. Accordingly sentence of imprisonment for ten years is reduced to seven years' R.I.
Which will be sufficient to meet the ends of Justice. No inquiry was held by the police or the trial Court to assess financial conditions of the appellants. In our view sentence of fine imposed upon the appellants is pretty, harsh. We reduce it from Rs,2,00,000 (two lac) each to Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) each or in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.
14. With these modifications this appeal is dismissed. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall remain intact.