' GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J.---This Criminal Appeal under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19th October, 2011, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (C.N.S), Quetta, whereby appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control: of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment of five years and to pay fine of Rs,50,000 or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26th July, 2010 complainant Abdul Aziz Buzdar, S.I. Along with his subordinate staff was checking the vehicles at Baleli Check Post, Quetta at about 2:00 p.m. a passenger Mazda Bus was coming from Khuclak side was stopped and found a passenger in suspected condition sitting on the seat near the rear door of the Bus, having a white colour sack in his lap. He was deboarded from the Bus and detail checking was carried out, which resulted in recovery of a sack which was opened and on search two packets baked Hashish, each packet containing 3/3 slabs, each slab containing one kgs.; total six, kgs. Baked Charas was recovered. The accused person disclosed his name as Muhammad Akbar son of Muhammad Siddique, Caste Awan, resident of Kasi Road, Shaldara. For sample, the complainant separated 30 grams from each slab and prepared sealed parcel. The case property was taken into possession vide memo; Exh.P/I -A and then draft Murasila (Exh. P/1-B) was sent to the Police Station for registration of formal F.I.R.
Against the accused/appellant and he was arrested.
3. After completion of necessary investigation, challan of the case was submitted before the trial Court for trial, where charge was framed under section 9(c) of C.N.S., Act, 1997 against the convict/ appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Whereafter the prosecution in order to prove the charge and to substantiate the allegation levelled against the appellant, produced as many as three witnesses. Summary of the prosecution evidence for just and proper appraisal is reproduced as under:-- ' Abdul Azi2, S.I complainant appeared as P.W.1 and furnished ocular account of the prosecution case. He produced Murasila as Exh. P/1-B and recovery memo; as Exh. P/1-A. Muhammad Haneef, A.S.-I, appeared as P.W.2 and narrated the facts of the case and produced recovery memo; as Exh.
P/ I -A . Syed Tasleem-ul-Hassan, Si, Investigation Officer of the case appeared as P.W.3 and produced copy of F.I.R. As Exh. P/3-A, F.S.L. Report as Exh.P/3-B and supplementary challan as Exh.P/3-C respectively.
4. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the charge and professed innocence and false implication in the case.
The appellant also recorded his statement on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C, however, did not produce evidence in- his defence. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and appraising the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Feeling dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution case is full of material contradictions, grave discrepancies and the judgment is the result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence available on record. He further contended that neither the driver nor the cleaner of the Bus was associated in the alleged recovery as witness. He further contended that only 30 grams of alleged recovered substance was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, therefore, at the most sentence could be recorded against the appellant with regard to 30 grams of Hashish.
He further argued that said sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner with a delay of more than five days; therefore, the appellant is entitled to be benefit of doubt, as such, may be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
6. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General argued that Prosecution had fully established its case against the appellant through ocular account as well as recovery and the positive report of the Chemical Examiner.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Deputy Prosecutor-General and have gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case is full of material contradictions, grave discrepancies, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said evidence, is belied by the statement of P. Ws . Namely Abdul Aziz S.I, Muhammad Haneef, S.I and Syed Tasleem-ul-Hassan, S.I.
The learned trial Court on appraisal of evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses has held that the discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of P.Ws. Are minor, which can be ignored in the circumstances of the case particularly on account 'of lapse' of time between recovery and evidence; moreover, the credibility of P. Ws. Named above cannot be questioned without any serious allegation of their malice against the accused. The appellant was arrested on the spot along with the contraband Charas and as per report of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.P/3-B) the same was found to be baked Charas Cannabinoids. The contradictions in the statement of P.Ws are of no consequence because all the witnesses remained consistent with each other on the point of date, time, place of arrest, recovery of Charas from the possession of appellant and its dispatch to the Chemical Examiner, therefore, 'their testimony could not be shattered during the test of cross-examination. Even otherwise, the police officials are as good witnesses as public witnesses until and unless the defence establishes specific enmity or malice against them.
8. As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding sending the sample with delay, there is no time limit in C.N.S. Act, 1997. Even otherwise, delay in sending the incriminating articles to the Chemical Expert for analysis could not be treated fatal in the absence of objections regarding the same having been tampered with or manipulated. In the instant case it has never been the stance of the appellant during the trial or even before this Court that the samples 'had either been replaced or tampered with, therefore, the arguments of learned counsel are also devoid of any legal force.
9. Coming to the last arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that only 30 grams of the recovered Charas was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the appellant at the most could be convicted for the said quantity, this argument of the learned counsel is also devoid of any legal force for the reason that it is no where the requirement of law to send the whole of the narcotic substance to the Chemical Examiner, only a small quantity is sufficient and would be enough to prove that entire recovered material was contraband substance. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, perversity, non-appraisal of evidence or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment, which is accordingly maintained.
10. Resultantly, we find no substance in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.