Javed Iqbal, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 1.2.2010 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are to the effect that "on 1.2.2007 Ghulam Hussain Buzdar IP/SHO lodged an FIR at Police Station Airport, Quetta stating therein that today he alongwith his subordinate were busy for the purpose of checking vehicles and suspects at Baleli Check Post, Quetta. At about 11.30 a.m. they stopped a double seater Datsun pickup bearing Registration No, WAC-526 for checking, which was loaded with the passengers coming from Kuchlak, one of the passenger, namely Salah-ud-Din son of Kamla was found in a suspected state having a "Chaddar" lying in his lap, was searched, which resulted in recovery of 10 bundles having 8- bundles, each total 80 pieces hashish weighed and found 20-Kgs". After completion of investigation the petitioner was sent up for trial and on conclusion whereof he was convicted by learned Special Judge CNS, Quetta vide judgment dated 25.3.2008 and sentenced under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs, 50,000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for six months with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred which has been dismissed, hence this petition.
3. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and urged with vehemence that the evidence has not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said contention it is argued that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the factum of recovery of charas by adducing cogent and forthright evidence. It is next argued that the defence version was not kept in juxtaposition which ought to have been considered. It is also contended that no conviction and sentence could have been awarded merely on the basis of statements of official witnesses which escaped the notice of learned Division Bench of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta.
4. We have carefully examined the entire record and perused the judgment impugned with the eminent assistance of Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner. After having gone through the entire evidence by keeping the defence version in juxtaposition we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that prosecution has proved the factum of recovery on the basis of forthright and convincing evidence. The statements of prosecution witnesses namely Ghulam Hassan, IP/SHO (PW-1), Muhammad Ansar, SI (PW-2) and Amanullah Kethran SIP/IO (PW-3) have been thrashed out in depth who all have supported the prosecution version and stood firm to the test of cross-examination and nothing beneficial could be elicited casting any doubt on their veracity. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot from a double seater Datsun pickup bearing Registration No, WAC-526 on whose search 20 kilograms hashish (charas) was found for which FIR was got lodged with promptitude and samples from alleged recovered material were sent to Chemical Expert without any loss of time which were found "charas" as a result of chemical examination. No enmity whatsoever has been alleged against the prosecution witnesses and there is hardly any possibility for false implication without having any ulterior motive which was never alleged. In view of the overwhelming prosecution evidence the defence version has rightly been discarded which otherwise is denial simpiciter and does not appeal to logic and reason. We are conscious of the fact that no private witness could be produced but it must not lost sight of that reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases by now has become a judicially recognized fact and there is no way out but to consider the statement of an official witness as no legal bar or restriction whatsoever has been imposed in this regard. We are fortified by the dictum laid down in Hayat Bibi u. Muhammad Khan (1976 SCM R 128), Yaqoob Shah v. The State (PLD 1976 SC 53), Muhammad Hanif v. State (2003 SCM R 1237). It is well settled by now that police officials are good witnesses and can be relied upon if their testimony remained unshattered during cross- examination as has been held in case of Muhammad Naeem v. State (1992 SCM R 1617).
Muhammad u. State (PLD 1981 SC 635). The contentions of Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner qua violation of provisions as enumerated in Section 103 Cr. P.C. seems to be devoid of merit when examined in the light of provisions as contained in Section 29 of the Act which provides exclusion of Section 103 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in accordance with well settled principles of appreciation of evidence and conclusion arrived at has been affirmed by the learned Division Bench vide judgment impugned which being well based does not warrant interference. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.