ABDUL QADIR MENGAL, J.---The appellant, Khalique Dad alias Jan Agha son of Agha Muhammad, has challenged the judgment dated 6-12-2008 of the Special Judge, CNS, Quetta, through which, the learned Special Judge, CNS, Quetta, convicted and sentenced him under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of the contraband narcotics to suffer R.I. For life imprisonment with the fine of Rs.100,000. In default of fine, he was ordered to further suffer S.I. One year. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr P.C. Also has been extended in his favour.
2. Brief facts leading to file, the present Criminal Appeal are that, on 26-1-2007, the I.P., S.H.O./D.S.P., Sardar Tariq Manzoor, lodged an F.I.R. At Police Station Sariab, Quetta, vide Marasla "Exh.P/2-A", alleging that, he got a credible spy information that, the appellant, Khalique Dad alias Jan Agha son of Agha Muhammad, was doing business of the narcotics and presently, a huge quantity of narcotics, lying in one of the rooms of his house.
3. After receiving the information, the I.P./S.H.O. Under the supervision of SDPO/DSP organized a raiding party, consisting upon ASI Abdul Rauf, Mushtaq Ahmed, Manzoor Ahmed, Muhammad Anwar, Juma Khan and other officials including Driver, Muhammad Ayub. He also took lady constable, Zohra Bibi, with them and at about 9-10 p.m., they raided to the house of the appellant, Khalique Dad, where, he was found present and in his presence, the house was searched and a jute sack was recovered from a ditch of a room. When the bag was opened, 14 kg. Of baked hashish, 20 kg. And 800 grams raw hashish including' 4 kg. Of Opium were recovered from the jute sack. The appellant was arrested, whereas, the samples were taken from the each of the contraband material and then were sealed/parceled.
4. After the registration of the F.I.R. And on conclusion of the investigation, the matter was sent to the Special Judge, CNS, Quetta, for trial, who, on 27-2-2007, framed the charge against the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution produced four witnesses i.e. Mushtaq Ahmed ASI P.W.1, Tariq Manzoor DSP P .W.2, Muneer Ahmed A.S.-I. P.W.3 and Ghulam Fareed Buzdar S.-I. P.W.4.
5. Mr. Muneer Ahmed Langove, Advocate, present for appellant while Mr. Abdul Ghias Nosharwani, Prosecutor-General, present for the State.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that, the appellant is innocent and wrongly has been involved in the matter. The contraband narcotics were recovered from one, Agha Sultan, who was an Afghan refugee, but the police let the real culprit and involved the appellant in the matter. The police in violation of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Conducted the raid to the house of the appellant and failed to associate any independent witness from the locality.
Moreover, as the police had prior information about the presence of narcotics, but he in violation of law did not take any search warrant and conducted search of the house. There are contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, but the same were neglected and a wrong and illegal judgment was passed. No any sample was taken from each rod, so as, the material was sent for analysis after a considerable delay. So being, the proceedings conducted wrongly and on the basis of wrong proceedings and legal flaws, the appellant was convicted in the matter, which is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, relied upon YLR 2007 (3087), YLR 2008 (985) and PCr.LJ 2006 Karachi (58).
7. The learned State counsel Mr. Abdul Ghias Nosherwani, Prosecutor-General, supported the impugned judgment and contended that, the objections of the counsel for the appellant having no any force and non-association of two respectable persons of locality, in the search and recovery proceedings, especially, have been excluded under the provisions of section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. In this respect the learned State counsel relied upon PCr.LJ 2006 Peshawar (988). The learned State counsel further argued that, there are no any specific contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence of the P.Ws., which could be considered fatal for the prosecution case.
8. Again, the learned State counsel argued that, the impugned judgment did not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of the evidence. Thus, the Special Judge, CNS, Quetta, rightly has convicted the appellant under the law, which requires no any interference. In this respect, the learned State counsel relied upon SCM R 2003 (54).
9. We have heard both the sides and perused the impugned judgment in the light of the case record and we are of the view that, there is no any weight in the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant. No doubt, the prosecution has successfully established the recovery of contraband material or narcotics, weighing 14 kg. Of the baked hashish, 20 kg. And 800 grams raw hashish including 4 kg. Of Opium from the house of the appellant.
10. The objections that, the recovery has been made in violation of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Or so as, no any search warrant has been taken in the present matter, gives no help to the appellant. As admittedly, under the provision of 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the application of section 103, Cr.P.C. Has been excluded, so as, the provisions of section 21 in respect of search and seizure are directory nature and are not mandatory, therefore, only neglecting provisions of section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, do not throw the entire proceedings of recovery out of consideration, particularly, when none, from the raiding party had been shown having any enmity against the appellant/convict. In this respect we have fortified our view from M LD 2005 (1718) and so as PCr.LJ 2005 (1858).
11. We have also given our anxious thought to the objection of the learned counsel that, there are contradictions in the prosecution evidence and moreso, no any sample has been taken from the rods of the hashish, however, we are of the view that, the above objections of learned counsel gets no support from the case record. The statement of P.W.2 Tariq Manzoor, shows that, Seventeen (17) packets of baked hashish consisting upon rods including other contraband materials have been recovered from the possession of the appellant, samples have been collected from hashish, raw hashish and opium separately while the whole rods sent for analysis. So being, the objection of counsel in the circumstances of the case, having no any weight, whereas, on our consideration to the evidence, we see no any specific or significant contradictions in the statements of P.Ws., which could discredit or disbelieved their evidence. On contrary, we are of the view that, the prosecution evidence is in consonance, corroboratory and having no any defect at all. The evidence of the P.W.1 Mushtaq Ahmed, the evidence of P.W.2 Tariq Manzoor, so as, the evidence of other material witnesses seems convincing one and worthy of credit, no any dent has been given to the evidence of P.Ws. From the defence side. The objection that, an Afghan Refugee was arrested and left by the prosecution, on our perusal of record, we also failed to see any such material, however, the newspaper on which, the appellant is relying, in our view, the said point also goes against the appellant, as he also has been seen in the picture, arrested as an accused. Whereas, it has come on record that, the second person, who was the father of the appellant and perhaps, he had no any role in connection of contraband materials, as such, he was not implicated in the matter.
With the above discussed circumstances, we find no any misreading and non-reading of the evidence. Again we see no any defect or lacuna in the judgment of the learned Judge, CNS, Quetta, therefore, we refrain to interfere in the impugned judgment. With the above, this appeal is failed and is dismissed.