' BIN YAMIN, J.---Appellant Manzoor son of Gul Khan has filed this appeal under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of spy information appellant was arrested on 21-10- 2005 from a room situated on the back side of New Quetta Gulshan Hotel, 32-miles bus stop on Super Highway, near Thana Bula Khan, District Jamshoro. At the time of arrest of the accused, one white colour bag (Katta) was found in his possession which was taken into custody. The said bag was opened by the complainant Abdul Jabbar, Excise Inspector, in presence of the Mashirs, ED Sikandar All and ED Abdul Jabbar, whereupon 20 loose packets of plastic were found available in the said bag. On opening of the said packets the same were found containing Charas. Accused was detained and on his personal search, an amount of Rs,650 was also secured from his possession. On weighing, each packet of Charas was found having weight of 1 Kg. Complainant then separated 10 grams Charas from each packet as a sample for sending to the Chemical Examinef. The complainant then prepared Mashirnama and sealed the recovered property in the said bag and also sealed separately the samples. 20 in number, for sending to Chemical Examiner.
The Mashirs put their signature on the Mashirnama. Thereafter accused along with recovered property was brought at the Excise Special Squad, Hyderabad, where this case against the accused was registered. On completion of the investigation, accused was challaned in the Court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Narcotics, Jamshoro. Accused was supplied the required documents under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Vide Receipt Exh.1 and thereafter charge Exh. 3 was framed on 13-2-2006. Accused did not plead guilty to the charge.
3. Prosecution in support of its case examined P. W.1 complainant Abdul Jabbar Exh.6; who produced daily diary entry Exh.7 Mashirnama of arrest and recovery Exh.8 F.I.R. Of the case Exh.9 and report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.10. Mashir of arrest and recovery ED Sikandar Ali was examined at Exh.11 Thereafter, prosecution closed its side vide statement Exh.12.
4. Statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded at Exh.13. He examined himself under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. At Exh.14. He produced documents Exh.15 to Exh.21. He also examined D.
W.1 Abdul Kareem Exh.22 and D.W.2 Faisal Shahzad Exh.23. Thereafter side of the defence was closed vide statement Exh.24.
5. After hearing the prosecutor as well as Defence Advocate, trial Court convicted the accused under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and awarded him imprisonment for life and also imposed fine of Rs,10,00,000 upon him. In case of default in payment of fine, he has to further undergo R.I. For three years. Appellant was, however, allowed benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the conviction recorded by the Special Court (Narcotics), Jamshoro at Kotri, accused has filed the instant appeal.
7. Heard Mr. Suhail Muzaffar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Saifullah, learned A.A.-G. For the State, also perused case papers.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/ accused submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case. That prosecution in support of its case has not examined any independent person from the locality, and has examined only official witness against the accused, though the complainant had earlier information about this matter. That non-examining any independent witness from the locality in support of its case, creates serious doubts in the case of the prosecution and the benefit of such doubts is to be extended to the appellant/accused. In this regard, he relied upon the case reported in 1999 SCM R 1220, 1995 SCM R 1345 and 2001 PCr.LJ 1312.
9. He secondly contended that though recovery was effected from the accused allegedly when he was sitting in the room, however no independent person from the area was asked to witness the same, thus the complainant has violated the provision of section 103 of Criminal Procedure Code and this fact also creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the recovery allegedly effected in this case.
10. He thirdly contended that the accused in his statement recorded on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Has stated that when the along with about 25 other persons was in the mosque in the morning time, to offer `Fajar' prayer, they were taken into custody by complainant party. That the other persons, taken into custody along with the appellant, were subsequently released on the payment of amount, whereas the appellant was challaned in this case. He further submitted that the appellant has examined in support of his version two independent persons i.e, one Pesh Imam of the mosque from where appellant was taken into custody Exh.22 and another, a shop keeper of the area namely Faisal Shahzad Exh.23. According to him, as the independent persons from the locality have supported version of the accused, the same may be given proper weight in comparison to the evidence of the official witnesses.
' Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution has not proved during the trial that the room from which appellant was arrested was in his exclusive possession. This contention of the learned counsel does not carry any weight, as it was not the case of the appellant, that besides him some other person/persons were also in possession of that room at the time of the incident.
On the contrary, his contention is that no narcotics was recovered from his possession. Hence this contention of learned counsel is contrary to the stand of the accused, and is not of any help to the case of appellant, the same stands rejected.
' The learned counsel lastly submitted that accused has produced a press clipping according to which one Manzoor was arrested by Excise Police on 20-10-2005 and this case against the appellant/accused was registered on 21-10-2005, thus a serious doubt has been created in the correctness of the case of the prosecution against the accused. The learned counsel also referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses recorded in this case, during the course of his arguments. He therefore, submitted that this appeal may be allowed and appellant/ accused may be acquitted from the charge of this case.
11. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Mr. Saifullah, disputed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore there is no merits in this appeal, hence the same may be dismissed and the judgment passed by the trial Court may be maintained.
12. We have given due consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant but we are of the opinion that the same do not carry any weight. For proper appreciation of the contentions of the learned counsel, we would discuss the same as under.
13. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no independent person is examined in support of the prosecution case is concerned, suffice it to say that the official witnesses are as good as any independent witness. Simply for the reason that they are official witnesses therefore their evidence against the accused should not be believed, and the same should be discarded, is not a sufficient ground. If the defence side wants that the evidence of the official witnesses should be discarded, it has to establish that the prosecution witnesses were hostile towards the accused and had reason to falsely implicate him. Nothing of the sort in this regard is available on the record to show that there was any reason for the official witnesses to falsely depose against A the accused. In holding this opinion, we are supported by 2008 SCM R 1616 wherein it was held that police witnesses are as good and respectable as other public witnesses and their statements cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they were the police employees. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we repel the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
14. The contention of learned counsel for appellant regarding non-calling of the person from the locality to witness the alleged recovery, suffice it to say that under section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 the applicability of section 103, Cr.P.C. Has been excluded, therefore his this contention does not carry any weight. In this connection also reliance can be made on the same case i.e, 2008 SCMR 1616 wherein it was held that non-citing of a public witness is not fatal to prosecution case as section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has specifically excluded section 103, Cr.P.C. From its application in cases of narcotics.
15. As regards the contention of the learned counsel that the accused has produced press clipping according to which the recovery was effected from one Manzoor on 20-10-2005 and on 21-10-2005 was involved in this case is concerned, it would be relevant to note that the press clippings are neither relevant nor admissible in evidence. Furthermore, the accused has not examined the reporter of the newspaper who has given the report about the recovery of narcotics from the said Manzoor. In this regard, reliance is placed upon PLD 2004 SC 583.
16. So far as examination of the private persons by the accused in his defence is concerned, it is observed that the evidence of these defence witnesses is neither confidence inspiring nor convincing one. In this regard, it would be relevant to note that D.W.1 Abdul Karim Exh.22 has deposed that accused Manzoor and his brother used to pay him salary for being `Pesh Imam' of the mosque, thus the evidence of this witness is that of an interested witness as he was a paid- servant of the appellant/accused. Again the accused has deposed in his statement on oath that besides him, 25 other persons were taken into custody, whereas this witness has deposed that only 7/8 persons were available in Masjid at the time of arrest of the accused. For these reasons no reliance can be placed on the version of this D.W.
17. Similarly, D.W. Faisal Shahzad Exh.23 in his cross-examination deposed that only he and appellant were taken into custody at the relevant time on the day of his arrest. As the evidence of this D.W. Is quite contrary to the claim of the appellant that he along with 25 others was taken into custody, therefore no reliance can be placed upon evidence of this D.W. Too.
18. The prosecution witnesses examined in this case have been consistent in their evidence regarding place from where the appellant/accused was arrested, about the time of arrest of the accused and the recovery of 20 Kg. Charas effected from his possession. The Chemical Examiner in his report Exh.23 has also stated that on 22-10-2005 he received 20 samples of 10 grams each and on analysis the material sent to him for analysis, was found to be Charas in nature. Both the witnesses of the prosecution in their evidence have supported each other on material points.
Nothing is available on the record to justify that their evidence should not be relied upon, therefore we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The minimum punishment provided for offence under section 9(c) of C.N.S. Act for recovery of 10 Kgs, or more narcotic, is imprisonment for life under proviso to section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, therefore we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial Court is quite correct and proper according to the facts, circumstances of the case and the law applicable, and the same does not require any interference by this Court.
Hence finding no merits in this appeal, we hereby dismiss the same.