' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.-Through this jail appeal Toti Khan, appellant, impugns the judgment dated 4-5-2000 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore .Through which the appellant was found guilty and was convicted under section 9-C of CNSA, 1997 and was sentenced to 14 years R.L and fine of Rs, 10,000. In case of non-payment of fine, it was ordered that he shall further undergo 6(six)months S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20-10-1998, on spy information that a person is selling Heroin in the graveyard at Capton Jamal Road, Lahore. The appellant, who was holding a plastic bag in his hand containing 4 kg. Of raw opium was apprehended and consequently, a complaint Exh.PA was drafted by Abdul Ghafoor, A.S.-I., who was on patrol duty, on the basis of which an F.I.R. No, 369 dated 20-10-1998 offence under sections 6/9 of CNSA, 1997 was registered against the appellant.
Before the registration of the case, the opium was taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh- PA which was witnessed by Sikandar and Muhammad Ramzan P.Ws. Out of the recovered opium, 10 grams was separated for chemical analysis.
3. After completion of the investigation, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Was submitted in Court.
Charge was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the case against the appellant, persecution examined five witnesses. To prove the recovery of 4 kg. Raw opium Ex. P-1, the prosecution produced Muhammad Ramzan P.W.3 and Abdul Ghafoor, A.S.-I, Incharge of Raiding party P.W.4. They, both are consistent on the point that on 20-10-1998, when they were present along with other police officials at D-l Block, Gulshan-e- Ravi Lahore on spy information, that a person standing near graveyard of Capton Shah Jamal Road and waiting for his customer for selling Narcotic and when the appellant was apprehended who disclosed his name as Toti Khan was carrying a white plastic bag in his right hand which was searched and 4 Kg. Raw opium was recovered. 10-grams was separated and it was sealed into a parcel. Both the above stated recovery witnesses took the test of cross-examination and nothing favourable to the appellant was disclosed. The chemical examiner report Exh.PD was also in positive. After the close of evidence, the appellant was examined under section, 342 Cr.P.G. In which he denied all the allegations levelled against him. He stated that he was selling maize and a person come to me in order to purchase maize and he was busy in preparing pop Corns, and on seeing the police men, the said person who had come to purchase maize, had run away by throwing his shopper bag at about 50 yards from the accused. The said police men pursued the said person. They were unable to arrest him. The police taken into possession the said shopping bag and went to the Rehri of the appellant and inquired about the name of said customer. On nondisclosing the name of the customer the police men having doubt regarding intimacy of said person with the appellant arrested the appellant and taken him to the police station and falsely implicated him. He further stated that recovery of 4 Kg. Raw Opium has been planted on him. In his defence evidence, he produced Dost Muhammad DW.l and Javaid Khan, DW.2 and himself appeared as DW.
3.
5. After hearing the arguments of the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that no recovery of Opium has been made from the appellant; that the recovery memo. Exh.PA has been signed by Sikandar Hayat and Muhammad Ramzan P.Ws. Who were police employees and no independent witness had been associated at the time of alleged recovery.
7. Conversely, learned State counsel had argued that huge quantity of 4 Kg. Raw Opium has been recovered from the possession of the appellant; that it is not obligatory for the prosecution to associate the public witness at the time of recovery as the police witnesses are as good witnesses as other public witnesses; that the prosecution recovery witnesses stood the test of cross- examination and nothing favourable for the appellant was found; that the chemical examiner report Exh.PD was in positive; that the appellant has been found guilty under section 9-C of CNSA, 1997 and there is no ground.To interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their assistance.
9. To prove the case against the appellant, the persecution have produced Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.3 and Abdul Ghafoor, A.S.-I., Incharge of the Raiding Party who appeared as P.W.4. Both are consistent in their statement and stated that on spy information appellant was apprehended near graveyard of Capton Shah Jamal Road and waiting for his customer for selling Narcotic. He was carrying white plastic bag which was searched and 4 Kg. Opium Ex. P-1 was recovered. 10-grams of Opium was sent for chemical analysis and the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PD is in positive.
It states that the bag contains the opium. The defence of the appellant that huge quantity of opium has been planted upon him does not stand to reason because no enmity have been suggested by him with the police. The objection that public witnesses of the locality as required under the law was not associated at the time of recovery of the opium Ex. P-1 and preparing of the recovery memo is not sustainable because Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is a special statute and by virtue of section 25 of CNSA, 1997 the association of Public witnesses under section 103, Cr.P.C. Has been dispensed with. Even otherwise, the police officials are as good recovery witnesses as any other public witness unless it is proved that they have animus against the appellant. It has been held in case reported as Gul Marjan v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 191 that police officials are as good recovery witnesses as any other public witnesses unless it is proved that they have animus against the accused. Dost Muhammad D.W.l and Javaid Khan D.W.2 have made the similar statement regarding the non-involvement of the appellant in any other case of similar nature. They have reached the police station after the recovery of the alleged narcotics from the appellant and their statements are hearsay.
10. In view of the matter, the prosecution was able to prove the case under section 9-C of CNSA, 1997 against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Since the appellant is first offender and having no previous record of the possessing of narcotics or dealing with the same. Section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provides punishment of death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years.
' Therefore, we sentence him for 10 years' R.I. The fine of Rs, 10,000 is maintained. In case of non- payment of fine, he shall further undergo 6(Six) months' S.I.
11. While maintaining the conviction we modify the sentence as aforesai. Sentence is modified.
Sentence Reduced