MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---Through this judgment, we intend to dispose of Criminal (C.N.S.) Jail Appeal No,53 of 2008, whereby the Special Judge, under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Lasbella at Hub vide his judgment dated 17th October, 2008 has convicted and sentenced appellant Abdul Latif son of Moula Bakhsh under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (the C.N.S. Act) to suffer life imprisonment with fine ofRs,100,000 (rupees one lac only), or in default thereof to further undergo six months' S.I. Benefit of section 382- B of the Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellant.
2. On 13th May, 2008, P.W.2 Munawar Ali Lasi, IP/CIA' (the complainant), in his murasila Exh.P/2-B, on the basis whereof F.I.R. Exh.P/5-E was registered at Police Station Hub City District Lasbella, alleged that during course of patrolling, along with other staff, he received secret information to the effect that Abdul Latif son of Moula Bakhsh (the accused) is present in his house situated at Akbar Colony Lingo Para, having huge quantity of heroin, which he is going to shift to some other place. On receipt of the said information, the complainant and other staff raided the said house where they found the accused in a residential room of the said house, sitting on a cot and on search, 39 packets of heroin in packed shape and 01 packet in open shape, each packet containing 01 kilogram, total weighing 40 kilograms, were recovered from beneath the beddings of said cot, which were taken into possession vide memo, the accused was arrested and F.I.R. No.89 of 2008 under section 9(c) of the C.N.S. Act was registered against him.
3. After investigation of the case, the matter was sent for trial to the Court of Special Judge, under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Lasbella at Hub (the trial Court), who after full-fledged trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove above, hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. Abdul Karim Yousafzai, learned counsel for the pauper appellant, in support of his case, submitted that the entire investigation was conducted by the CIA staff, who were not competent to do so and, thus, all things done by them were illegal and based on mala fide; that Munawar Ali Sheikh, IP/Incharge CIA staff Lasbella at Hub, had no authority, to arrest the appellant, register the F.I.R. Or to record the statements under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Of the witnesses; that if law required certain thing to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in that manner; that the entire evidence is unauthorized and has vitiated the entire trial; that the house, from where the alleged recovery had been effected, was not mutated in the name of appellant in the Revenue Record: that no private witness had appeared in support of the prosecution case; that only 40 grams heroin were sent to the Chemical Examiner, while the remaining remained in the custody of the prosecution; that the provisions of section 103 of the Cr.P.C., as well as sections 20 and 21 of the C.N.S. Act, had been violated and; that the defence plea taken by the appellant was more probable and nearer to truth, but the same had been discarded by the trial Court without any legal justification, thus, the judgment impugned herein may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted.
5. On the contrary, the appeal has been vehemently opposed by Haji Liaquat Ali, Advocate, representing the State, who submitted that the appellant is nominated in the F.I.R.; that 40 kilograms of heroin have been recovered from him; that all the prosecution witnesses have deposed against him and no enmity of any nature has been shown against him, which could show that the P.Ws. Have deposed against him falsely and; that the defence plea has been introduced by the appellant, just to hide his own guilt, thus, the appeal, being meritless, deserves dismissal.
6. The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the pauper appellant was that the investigation was conducted by CIA Police, as the Investigating Officer was a Sub-Inspector of CIA, therefore, the entire investigation was illegal, void, ab initio and the appellant was entitled to acquittal on this ground alone, however, we are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel being misconceived. P.W.2 Munawar Ali Sheikh, IP, who was posted at CIA Center Lasbella at Hub, had received secret information during their routine gusht about the existence of huge quantity of heroin in the house of accused Abdul Latif, situated at Akram Colony, Langove Para, Hub, which was to be shifted instantly. Accordingly, he raided and entered the said house, wherefrom 40 kilograms heroin were recovered from the possession of the appellant. However, the said Inspector, sent the murasila to Police Station Hub City, District Lasbella, where the F.I.R. Was registered and investigation of this case was entrusted to Mazhar Iqbal, SI, of CIA Center Lasbella, who conducted the investigation and recorded the statements of P.Ws. Under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. There is no cavil to the proposition that under section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C, the CIA personnel have no power to investigate a cognizable offence, but, in the instant case, F.I.R. Of the case had been lodged at Police Station City Hub, District Lasbella and the challan of the case was also submitted before the Court by the Station House Officer (SHO), Muhammad Amin Lasi, of the said police station. Even if it is presumed that Mazhar Iqbal, SI, was not competent to investigate the matter, yet it would amount to only an irregularity, which will not affect the impugned judgment or the whole trial, particularly when neither any prejudice nor injustice was caused to the appellant, nor he raised such objection during the course of trial, therefore, at this belated stage, he is estopped under the law to raise such objection.
7. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the arrest of appellant by the CIA staff is concerned, the same has no legs to stand on, as section 54 of the Cr.P.C. Furnishes a complete answer to the said contention, which speaks as under:- "54. When police may arrest without warrant.---(I) Any police-officer may, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest: Firstly, any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned; Secondly, ..
Thirdly, -- ..
Fourthly, ..
Fifthly, --- ..
Sixthly, --- ..
Seventhly,.
Eighthly, - Ninthly, -- ..
8. Reverting to the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the trial Judge has discussed the evidence in its true perspective and has given valid reasons for concluding the case. The judgment of the trial Judge does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. The provisions of section 103 of the Cr.P.C. Have no application to the narcotic cases as provided under section 25 of the C.N.S. Act. Even otherwise, we are conscious of the fact that strangers always avoid to poke their nose in such-like cases. The prosecution witnesses have furnished straightforward and confidence-inspiring evidence and there is nothing on record to show that they are deposing against the appellant maliciously or out of animus. It cannot be believed that the official would plant such a huge quantity of narcotic on the appellant from their own resources.
8. So far as the contention of learned counsel that out of entire lot i,e, 40 kilograms heroin, only a negligible quantity of 40 grams had been dispatched to the chemical analyst is concerned, we are of the -opinion that under the provision of section 36 of the C.N.S. Act, the whole lot is not required to be sent to the Examiner for the purpose of test, as sample is always treated as part of the total.
9. Similarly, a bare perusal of the version, introduced by the appellant, shows that the same is absurd, improbable and even does not appeal to reasons. It also reveals that the same is afterthought and made just to hide his own guilt and the same is nothing, but a cock and bull story.
The house in question, where from the recovery of contraband material, has been effected, is in the name of appellant's wife and in this respect the prosecution produced stamp-paper mark P/4-A.
' For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being meritless is dismissed.