SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.---This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17-9-2005 passed by the Judge Special Court C.N.S.A. 1997/ASJ Attock whereby Mum Ullah Khan son of Sapeen Badsha caste Pathan, residence of Sheikhan Police Station Budbair District Peshawar was convicted under section 9(c), C.N.S.A. 1997 for recovery of Charas weighing 133-Kg and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,50,000. In default of payment of fine he was to further undergo one year' R.I with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In case F.I.R. No. 412 dated 19-12-2001, under section 9(c) of C.N.S.A. 1997 registered at Police Station Attock Khurd District Attock.
2. Aggrieved with this decision, appellant has challenged the same before this court through present appeal.
3. Prosecution case according to F.I.R. Is that on 19-12-2003, Javed Altaf S.-I./SHO Police Station Attock Khurd along with other police officials was present on general "Naka Bandi" at G.T Road in front of Police Station Attock Khurd when he received information from his sources that huge quantity of Charas would be smuggled from the Province of N.-W.F.P. Into the Province of the Punjab. On this "Naka Bandi" was made strict. At 6-25 p.m. a Honda City Car of golden colour having green number plate with Registration No. 4365-IDG came from the side of Peshawar in which two persons were boarding. Car was signaled to stop but the driver speed up the car and rushed towards Rawalpindi. The car was chased on official vehicle No. APF/10. When reached on the opposite side of village Mulla Mansoor at 6-35 p.m., the driver of the car could not control the car and the car fell down into the ditch near the G.T Road. Mum Ullah Khan son of Sapeen Badsha, caste Pathan residence of Sheikhan Police Station Budbair District Peshawar who was boarding in the car became injured. He was apprehended at the spot while Muhammad Sarfraz son of unknown caste Pathan resident of Sheikhan Police Station Budbair District Peshawar, whose name and address came to know during interrogation, succeeded in running away. During interrogation Mum Ullah Khan accused made disclosure that there was Charas in the secret cavities inside the diggy and dash board of the car. On this search of the car was made in which 86 packets of Charas which were wrapped in blue and red colour plastics were recovered from the secret cavities in the diggy of the car. 47 packets of Charas which were wrapped in blue and Khaki plastics were recovered from the dash board of the car. On weighing the total Charas came to 133- Kg. Out of the recovered Charas sma ll quantity of Charas was taken from each packet and made sample parcel of Charas weighing 150-grams while the remaining Charas was made into separate parcels of two sacks having 50- packets each and another sack having 33-packets of Charas which were sealed with stamp of NK. All the four parcels of Charas along with Car No. IDG/4365 with key were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo. On recovery of Charas from the accused, present case was registered against him.
4. After completion of investigation Challan against Mum Ullah Khan accused was submitted in the court.
5. On 17-6-2004 Mum Ullah Khan accused/appellant was charged under section 9(c) of C.N.S.A.
1997 by Judge Special Court C.N.S.A. 1997 (sic)/Additional Sessions Judge Attock to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses.
P. W.1 Faisal Shahzad 514/C was posted at Police Station Attock Khurd on 22-12-2003. Gulzar Ahmad HC 435 handed over to him one sealed sample parcel for its onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner. He took the same to the relevant office and deposited it there on the same day intact.
P.W.2 Gul Faraz HC 435 was posted as Moharrir/HC in Police Station Attock Khurd on 19-12-2003. On the same day Javed Altaf SI/SHO handed over to him four sealed parcels for keeping them in Malkhana which he kept in safe custody. On 23-12-2003 he handed over sealed sample parcel said to contain Charas to Faisal Shahzad F.C. For onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner.
P.W.3 Dr. Syed Fayyaz Hussain Bukhari, Medical Officer District Headquarter Hospital Attock medically examined Mum Ullah Khan son of Sapeen Badsha accused on 19-12-2003 at 10-15 p.m.
And found four injuries on his person. He declared injury No.4 Shajja-eKhafifah while rest of the injuries were declared Jurh Damiah. Kind of weapon used was blunt and he received these injuries in road accident. Exh.P-A is the carbon copy of MLR which is in his hand and bears his signatures.
P.W.4 Zubair Hayat F.C. 646 was posted at Police Station Attock Khurd. On 19-12-2003 Khalid Mahmood produced complaint Exh.P-B drafted by Javed Altaf S.-I. And he recorded formal F.I.R.
Exh.P-B/1 without any addition or omission which bears his signatures.
P.W.5 Ijaz Hussain Baloch S.-I. Is the recovery witness of the occurrence. He furnished recovery/ocular account.
P.W.6 Javed Altaf S.-I. Is the I.O. Of the case. He proved the investigation of the case conducted by him.
7. Learned DDA for the State gave up P.W. Ali Asghar Head Constable being unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P-F.
'
8. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C, Tariq Mahmood accused denied and dismissed each piece of prosecution evidence put to him. In an answer to a question as to why this case against him and why the P. Ws. Deposed against him, he stated as under:-- "I am labourer and was working with one Sher Rehman and Mashar Khan who were having Bee Farm near the place of occurrence. I was going to bring water and near the road met with an accident and I received injuries. The original culprit taking the advantage of darkness fled away and the police arrested me and I was lying injured near the car. I have no concern whatsoever with the narcotics. The police just only to show the performance involved me in this case falsely."
9. Mum Ullah Khan appellant/accused did not examine himself on oath as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, he examined D. W.1 Mashar Khan son of Sher Rehman in support of his defence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has not produced any independent evidence to prove its case. All the P.Ws. Are police officials. So, they are not reliable witnesses. I.O. Is the complainant as well as witness of recovery. No narcotic has been recovered from the physical possession of the appellant. Taking advantage of darkness actual culprits fled away from the spot while the police arrested the appellant as he was lying injured near the car after meeting some accident. It is asserted that the appellant has no concern whatsoever with the narcotic. Sentence awarded to the appellant is also harsh.
11. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment and prayed for maintaining the sentence awarded to the appellant. It is contended that the appellant has failed to show any ill will or motive on the part of police to falsely implicate him in this case.
Keeping in view the recovery of heavy quantity of Charas weighing 133-Kg from the secret cavities of car driven by the appellant, the same cannot be planted by the police. Prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. The sentence and conviction of the appellant, therefore, does not call for any interference by the court.
12. To prove recovery of Charas weighing 133-Kg from the secret cavities of Honda City Car bearing No. IDG/4395 driven by Mum Ullah Khan appellant, prosecution examined PW-5 Ijaz Hussain Baloch SI and P.W.6 Javed Altaf SI/SHO/I.O. They both unanimously supported the prosecution version and proved the stated recovery of Charas from the appellant vide recovery memo. Exh.PC. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material,-contradiction in the statements of the said P.Ws. No doubt all the P.Ws. In this case are police officials. However they are as good witnesses as any other public witnesses and their statements cannot be discarded only for the reason that they are police employees. Reference in this context can be made to the cases of Muhammad Azam v. The State PLD 1996 SC 67, Naseer Ahmad v. The State 2004 SCM R 1361, Aala Muhammad and another v. The State 2008 SCM R 649 and Muhammad Khan v. The State 2008 SCM R 1616.
So far as the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant that the I.O. Is the complainant and also the witness of recovery, it has been held in 2008 SCM R 1254 that, "The matter has been dealt with by this court in the case of State through Advocate-General Sindh v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 wherein it has been observed that police officer is not prohibited under the law to be the complainant if he is witness to the commission of the offence and also to be the I.O. So long as it does not in any way prejudice the accused person. Though I.O.
And other prosecution witnesses are employee of ANF, they had no animosity or rancor against the appellant to plant such huge quantity of narcotics material upon him."
13. It is in the prosecution evidence that when signaled to stop the appellant who was driving the car, speed up the car and rushed towards Rawalpindi. The car was chased in official vehicle by the police. Near the village Mullan Mansoor, the appellant could not control the car and the car fell down in a ditch whereafter the appellant was apprehended by the police from the car in injured condition and Charas weighing 133 Kg was recovered on the disclosure and at the pointation of the appellant from the secret cavities of the said car which reflects his knowledge. The driver having the charge of vehicle for long journey is supposed to have knowledge with regard to the contents and articles being transported in C it. Reference in this regard can be made to the case Faiz Muhammad and another v. The State' 2009 SCM R 1403.
14. Adverting to the appellant's plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, we feel that the plea is an afterthought and has not been substantiated by any cogent evidence by him. It has come in the cross- examination of D.W.1 Mashar Khan, the only witness produced in defence; that he did not appear before the high ups of the police in the innocence of the accused nor submitted any application in his defence This being so, his statement has been rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Court.
15. In view of above we are of the opinion that the evidence which has been brought on the record has rightly been appreciated by the learned trial Court assigning valid and cogent reasons. No illegality, irregularity, misreading, non-reading or misappreciation of evidence has been pointed out persuading us to accept this appeal. This being so, no exception can be taken to the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant by the learned Judge Special Court CNSA/ASJ and we also maintain the same.
16. Adverting to the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction in the quantum of sentence, we, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, find that the learned trial Court has already taken very lenient view in awarding sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,50,000 instead of normal penalty of death to the appellant for the recovery of huge quantity of Charas weighing 133-Kg from him.
17. In view of above, finding no substance in this jail appeal, we dismiss the same. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.