' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- The learned counsel has filed this appeal from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, dated 12-4-2007. The appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 9-C, C.N.S.A. Of 1997 for life imprisonment. The appellant was also imposed fine to the tune of Rs,50,000, in default of the payment to further undergo six months' S.I.
However, he was given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The appellant was charged, convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court in F.I.R. No,605, dated 27-9-2004, under section 9(c), C.N.S.A., 1997. The F.I.R. Was registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala.
3. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the complainant Aamer Shaheen Gondal, S.-I. Of Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala sent a complaint for registration of F.I.R. Stating therein that during the investigation of another F.I.R. No,597 of 2004 registered at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala accused in the said F.I.R., Muhammad Imran led police party to Dera of present appellant, where appellant was found lying on a cot while using a bag as pillow. The said bag was locked with a lock and on demand of the complainant, appellant handed over him a key taking it out from his pocket.
The bag was unlocked whereupon 16 Kgs. Charas and 4 Kgs. Gardah was recovered from the same bag. Ten gram Charas and ten gram Garda were separated for sample. On personal search of the appellant/accused, the sale price of Rs,700 and a pistol of .30 bore were also recovered. On unloading of pistol, 7 live bullets were also recovered. According to the F.I.R., another person was found sitting there in the same room namely, Rehmat Ali who also got recovered 50 grams Charas.
4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution got examined six P.Ws. The prosecution gave up P.W. Sultan Ahmad, 2229/C being unnecessary. ' The report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.D. Was also produced.
5. Akhlaq Ahmad, Moharrir of Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala was examined as P.W.1. He deposed that on 27-9-2004, Investigating Officer Muhammad Saeed handed over to him two sealed parcels which he kept in Malkhana and handed over the same to Munir Ahmad, 338/C for the deposit in the office of Chemical Examiner. Fazal-ur-Rehman, S.-I. Was examined as P.W.2. He drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Muhammad Munir, 338/C was examined as P.W.3. He deposited the two sealed parcels containing Charas and Garda in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore on 12-4-2006. Hafiz Muhammad Amjad, S.-I. Was examined as P.W.4. He deposed that on 27-9-2004, he was posted at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala and was present in the police station in connection with case F.I.R. No,597 dated 27-9-2004. He further stated that in presence of Ansar Mehmood, 2063/C, Sarfraz Liaquat 2283/C, Sultan Ahmad, 2229/C accused Imran of the above said case made a disclosure that he purchased the Charas from his paternal uncle Muhammad Sarwar alias Pappu (present appellant). After this disclosure, accused Imran led the police party and identified Muhammad Sarwar, appellant who was having a bag with him being used a pillow. On inquiry the appellant produced a key from the pocket of his shirt and the bag was unlocked, upon which 16 kg. Charas P.1, and 5 Kgs. Garda P.2 were recovered from that bag. Besides above said case property, amount of Rs,700 was also recovered from the personal search of the appellant and the same was taken into possession through recovery memo Exh.P.B. He dispatched the complaint Exh.PA/1 through Liaquat Ali to the Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala. On further personal search a pistol along with 7 live bullets was also recovered from the possession of accused Muhammad Sarwar, appellant. Muhammad Ansar 2062/C was examined as P. W".5. He was also recovery witness of narcotics recovered from a bag lying under the appellant. Saeed Ahmad, S.- I./P.W.6 investigated the case. He stated that on 27-9-2004, he was present at Dastagir Chowk on patrolling duty and Muhammad Sadiq Constable brought a copy of F.I.R. Exh.P.A. After receipt of F.I.R., he reached at the spot where Amjad S.-L, Ansar, Sultan Constables were also present. He prepared site-plan Exh.P.C., recorded the statements of P. Ws. And reached at police station along with case property and the accused. The case property and custody of accused was handed over to him by Amjad S.-I. He handed over the case property to the Moharrir. He sent the accused, in judicial lock up and challaned him.
6. The appellant stated in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Answering a question why this case was made against him:--- "His leg was fractured and Imran and Rehmat were taking him for bandage on a motorcycle without registration number. Aamer Shaheen Gondal, S.-I. Arrested them and locked them in the police lock up. Thereafter, Aamer Shaheen, S.-I..And Hafiz Muhammad Amjad, S.-I. Arrested Shakeel Pathan along with truck of Charas but released them for extraneous reasons. The recovered Charas was planted upon the appellant and his companion Imran and Rehmat falsely and handed over to him and Rehmat to Saeed Ahmad, S.-I. Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala."
' The accused/appellant neither opted to produce evidence in his defence nor he himself appeared under section 342(2), Cr.P.C.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel representing the State. We have considered their arguments and also examined the record with their help. It is very strange to note that F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Clearly mentions the name of Ameri Shaheen Gondal, S.-I. As complainant yet he was never produced before the Court. The same, fact has also been stated by P.W.2 Fazal-urRehman, S.-I. According to him, on 27-9-2004, he was posted at Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala. He received a written complaint from Aamer Shaheen Gondal, S.H.O.
Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala for registration of an F.I.R. At Police Station Satellite Town. On the said complaint, P.W.2 drew the F.I.R. Exh.P.A. On the other hand, P.W.6/Investigating Officer stated that on 27-9-2004, he was posted at Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala. He was on patrol duty at Dastagir Chowk. At about 12 a.m. (night) Muhammad Sadiq Constable produced F.I.R.
Before him whereupon he went to the scene of crime. He found Amjad, S.-I., Ansar Constable and Sultan Constable over there. P.W.6 prepared site-plan Exh.P.C. And also recorded statement of the witnesses. According to him, he took possession of ease property, accused and came to the police station. He added that actually case property and accused were produced before him after some time in the morning by Amjad S.-I. In his cross-examination, P.W.6 conceded that another F.I.R., in which accused Rehmat is charged, as mentioned in the F.I.R., refers name of Aamer Shaheen Gondal as complainant, wherein P.W.6 wrote that when he reached at the scene of occurrence he met Aamer Shaheen, S.-I./S.H.O. Model Town, P.W. Ansar, P.W. Sultan. He conceded that though in F.I.R. it is mentioned that the bag from which narcotics were recovered was locked with a lock which was opened after obtaining key from the appellant yet they were not taken into custody nor they were produced before him. Even P.W.6 did not demand production of the same. P.W.6 further conceded that he had not seen the case property when he reached at the scene of occurrence though he had seen the parcels. He further conceded that he had not taken into custody the case property because the other prosecution witnesses told him that they would send the case property to him later on. He also failed to give detail of case property in the Court. He conceded that he could not tell the number of packets of Charas.. According to him, four people had told him that scene of occurrence was Dera of appellant but he did not know the names of those persons nor they were joined in the investigation. The complaint Exh.P.C. Mentions of two cots in the room from where recovery was effected but P.W.6 stated that he had seen only one cot. P.W.5 also mentioned in his cross-examination that they found appellant and another accused Rehmat lying on two separate cots. According to P.W.4 on 27-9-2004, he was posted at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala. He was conducting investigation of F.I.R. No,597 and during the course of investigation, the accused Imran in the said case disclosed that Charas recovered from his possession was obtained from his uncle Muhammad Sarwar alias Pappu, present appellant. According to him, he reached at the scene of occurrence and arrested appellant and another accused person namely Rehmat. In the meanwhile, Saeed Ahmad S.-I. Of Police Station Satellite Town, P.W.6 arrived. The accused persons and parcels recovered from the accused/appellant were handed over to him.
There is clear C contradiction between the statement of P.W.4 and P.W.6. According to. P.W.6, the accused and case property were handed over to him subsequently in the morning. During the cross-examination P.W.4 conceded that place of occurrence/recovery did not lie in jurisdiction of his police station i,e, Police Station Model Town instead it lies within the jurisdiction of Police Station Satellite Town. Yet he raided the scene of occurrence instead of informing the concerned police station, i,e, Satellite Town Police Station. He also conceded that he raided within the jurisdiction of another police station without writing a rapt in his own police station i,e, Police Station Model Town.
P.W.4 conceded that at the time of arrest, appellant's leg was bound in a plaster/bandage. He also conceded that complainant of F.I.R. No,606 which was registered under section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965 against the appellant is Aamer Shaheen Gondal, S.-I. And F.I.R. No,607 which was registered against Rehmat was also registered on the complaint of Aamer Shaheen Gondal, S.-I. It is undisputed that the instant F.I.R. Mentions recovery of illicit pistol from the appellant as well as recovery of 50 grams Charas from Rehmat at the same time by Aamir Shaheen, S.-I. In the said circumstances, enigmatic deletion of Aamer Shaheen Gondal, S.-I. As complainant from the prosecution evidence is not understandable and it creates a lot of doubt at the same time in prosecution version.
8. The learned trial Court referring to the writing of complaint by Aamer Shaheen Gondal, S.-I.
Observed as under:-- "It appears that P.W.2 on the wrong presumption that the complaint has been drafted by Aamer Shaheen mentioned his name as complainant while neither the same was drafted by him nor bear his signatures."
' This observation of the learned trial Court is contradictory to several pieces of the evidence which have been pointed out in the foregoing paragraphs.
9. Violation of Rules 25.3 and 25.4 of Police Rules, 1934 may not have a serious consequence in isolation but when it is seen and considered in conjunction with other flaws and doubts, etc. As discussed above, it does contaminate and blur the story of the prosecution. The introduction of P.W.4 further increases -the doubts in the prosecution story, whereas, it was not done in other two F.I.Rs, NoS.606 and 607 of 2004, registered at Police Station Model Town. For the same reasons, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.
10. As a result of above discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned trial Court dated 12-4-2007. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other cases.