' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 24-11-2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No,125 of 2003.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are to the effect that on 2-1- 2003 a case F.I.R. No,6 of 2002 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been registered against Abdul Rasheed, the appellant at Police Station Hub, District Lasbella on the complaint of Amir Abdullah, S.-I., stating therein that in pursuance of spy information the house of the appellant situated at Baldia Road, Hub was raided by the police party under the supervision of A.S.P./S.D.P.O. During search thereof 1 Kg. Of heroin had been recovered from underneath the bed of a room, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.2/A, 100 grams therefrom was sealed into one parcel for Chemical Examiner while the remaining 900 grams was sealed into another parcel. After registration and investigation of the case the challan of the case was sent to the Court of Special Judge Control of Narcotic Substances, Lasbella at Hub for trial against the appellant. On receipt of the challan the appellant was charged under section 9(b) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, produced Amir Abdullah S.-I.
Complainant/Seizing Officer P.W.1, Maqsood Anwar S.-I., Mashir of recovery memo. P.W.2, Munawar Ali S.-I./ Investigating Officer P.W.3 and also tendered in evidence positive report of the Chemical Examiner and closed its evidence. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant had been examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him, asserting innocence. He also got his statement recorded under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. But did not produce any evidence in his defence.
3. The learned trial Judge after evaluating the prosecution evidence and the defence plea convicted the appellant under section 9(b) of the Act and sentenced him to seven years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default thereof to further undergo seven months' S.I. Vide his judgment, dated 30-4-2003. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence through Criminal Appeal No,125 of 2003 which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, vide judgment, dated 24-11-2003, maintaining his conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment, the appellant filed jail petition for leave to Appeal No,230 of 2004, wherein leave was granted by this Court on 26- 10-2005.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the heroin from the sole possession of the appellant while the house was in joint possession of the appellant, his sons and women-folk; that neither there was any evidence that the narcotics material was recovered from the personal search of the appellant nor he himself led the raiding party to the recovery thereof; that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence; that no public witness has been associated in the recovery proceedings and all the witnesses cited by the prosecution were police employees. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their kind assistance. All the three prosecution witnesses had demonstrated complete unanimity on all aspects of the case. The appellant could not point out any contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, so as to create a dent in the rosecution case. No enmity, or grudge has been alleged gainst the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant and despite lengthy cross-examination, their veracity could not be shattered and nothing favourable to the defence could be extracted from their statements. The most important aspect of the case is that a large quantity of about 1000 grams (1 Kg.) of heroin could not be thrust upon the appellant in absence of any tangible and concrete enmity, which has not been proved by the defence. The appellant could not point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice.
6. So far as the argument regarding non-association of the public witnesses at the time of raid by the raiding party is concerned, suffice it to observe that application of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Has been excluded under section 25 of the Act, as laid down by this Court in Fida Jan v. The State 2001 SCM R 36. The prosecution witnesses being B members of the raiding party were the natural witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they were the employees of the police force. Reference in this context, may be made to Muhammad Azam v.
The State PLD 1996 SC 67, Muhammad Hanif v. The State 2003 SCM R 1237, Riaz Ahmad v. The State 2004 SCM R 988 and Naseer Ahmad v. The State 2004 SCM R 1361.
7. The sons of the appellant had also been arrested by the police as from their personal search, recovery of heroin has been effected and they were also challaned separately under the law. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. In answer to question No,1, has admitted the raid. Allegedly the narcotics material recovered from underneath the bed of a room of the appellant's house was in his possession and the defence before the trial Court has not objected that the place of recovery of the contraband material was not in his exclusive possession. The appellant during trial failed to substantiate that the recovered articles were not in his exclusive possession, therefore, merely raising plea that some other persons also occupied the house was not sufficient to exonerate him from the charge. It is provided in section 29 of the Act that it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed the offence under this Act in respect of any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance and once prosecution establishes recovery beyond doubt then the burden is shifted to the defence to discharge innocence of the accused and the conviction/sentence recorded by the trial Court then would be unexceptionable when accused fails to discharge burden as per provisions contained in section 29 (ibid). The defence version that the recovered heroin has been foisted upon the appellant was not found plausible by the trial Court as well as the learned High Court. The prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the appellant to hilt by producing the witnesses of the recovery of narcotics material and the report of the Chemical Examiner. The High Court after appraising the prosecution evidence has rightly declined to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. In view of the above, we find no illegality, infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court which is unexceptionable.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this appeal. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed and the leave granting order recalled.