' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The applicant has applied post-arrest bail in Crime No,211 of 2011 lodged at Police Station, A Section, Khairpur under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic 'Substances Act 1997 and 13-D of the Arms Ordinance.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 12-8-2011 at 1530 hours, complainant SIP Ashraf Ali lodged F.I.R. On behalf of the State which is as under:-- "It is complaint on behalf of the State that today I along with subordinate staff namely A.S.-I.
Ghulam Habib Gopang, PC Altaf Hussain, PC Rahim Dino Siyal in police uniform, left Police Station in Government vehicle vide Entry No,17/12-8-2011 at 1315 hours departed for patrolling via Chhatri Chowk, to Khaki Shah bridge. When we reached at Rind water course, we parked the vehicle besides the road and saw a car coming from Kot Diji towards Khairpur. Seeing the police party and official mobile the car took u-turn, we suspected the car and Police party immediately boarded in the official vehicle and forced it to stop. The police party surrounded the car and apprehended a person along with the car. The man brought down from the car, his name and address was enquired, who told his name as Pandhi Khan. Due to non-availability of private mashirs A.S.-I.
Ghulam Habib and PC Rahim Dino were appointed as mashirs, and searched the car. A black shopper was recovered beneath the driver seat, which was opened and found four slabs of charas, the same were taken into police possession and also recovered one Rifle resembling K.K from behind the back seat and a pistol 9 mm was also recovered which were taken into police custody.
The secured rifle was unloaded and found 28 bullets in its magazine. The 9 mm pistol was unloaded and found 8 bullets in its magazine. The weighing scale was taken out from the Investigation Bag and weighed the chara's which became 2 Kgs. Which was sealed in a parcel on the spot in presence of the mashirs. The apprehended person was enquired about the weapons and charas recovered from. Him, he disclosed that charas and weapons belonged to him and he sells the charas for his livelihood. He does not have licences of rifle and pistol. He was arrested under section 9(c) C.N.S. Act and 13(d) Arms Ordinance. The car was taken into possession as case property involved in the offence. Such mashirnama was prepared in presence of above mashirs.
The arrested accused and recovered property were brought to the Police Station and instant case is being registered against accused on behalf of the State. However the cases for unlicensed weapons will be registered separately".
3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated at the behest of political figure of the area. The applicant came at Sukkur and his licensed weapons prohibited bore Rifle No,4932611 so also pistol 9 MM non-prohibited bore were lying in the Car. He argued that SIP Ashraf Ali Mangi stopped the applicant and snatched foreign made Rifle from the applicant and on his hue and cry, the police took away him to Police Station and lodged false F.I.R.
And also shown recovery of 2 Kgs Charas from the Car. He further argued that SIP Ashraf Ali Mangi usurped precious weapon of the applicant, and in its place foisted one local made rifle like K.K.
When the licence of 9 MM Pistol was presented in the Court, the learned Magistrate acquitted the applicant under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. In Crime No,213 of 2011 lodged under section 13(d) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance. He further argued that the Charas was not recovered from the physical possession of the applicant but the same was shown to be lying under the seat of the Car. It was further averred that on the basis of alleged recovery of Rifle- and Pistol, the Police has registered two separate F.I.Rs, in order to increase the gravity of the offence. The complainant and P.Ws. Are police officials and no private person has been cited as witness nor mashir of recovery.
4. Conversely, the learned A.P.-G. Argued that the applicant was apprehended by the police and 2 Kgs of Charas was recovered from his Car under the driver seat, therefore, it cannot be said that the Charas was not recovered from his possession. He further argued that it is not possible by the Police to foist huge quantity of Charas upon the applicant. He further argued that in the ground of bail application-the applicant has alleged, that SIP Ashraf Ali Mangi/complainant signaled the Car of applicant and he snatched foreign made Rifle from him upon which the applicant raised hue and cry and police took him to Police Station and lodged the false F.I.R. Showing 2 Kgs. Recovery of Charas which is nothing but a misconceived arguments. So far as registration of 13(d) F.I.R. Is concerned, the learned A.P.-G. Argued that 2 different allegations are mentioned in the F.I.R., one relates to possession of 2 Kgs. Charas and another allegation is carrying of weapons without licence. Though in one of the 13(d) cases; the trial Court in exercise-of powers under section 249-A Cr.P.C. Acquitted the applicant but it does not wash out crime committed by the applicant under section 9(e) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
5. The main ground, raised by the learned counsel for the applicant for grant of bail is that the applicant has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khairpur in Criminal Case No,163 of 2011 arising from Crime No,213 - of 2011 lodged under section 13(d) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance and licensed weapon was recovered from the same place and incident in which the applicant was alio booked for the offence under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 , which according to learned counsel creates reasonable doubt and he referred to the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCM R 1345), in which, it was held that for giving benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If a simple circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused then lie will be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.
6. The facts of the above, case are highly distinguishable in which 2 separate parcels containing one gram heroin sold by the applicant to Muhammad Shafi and one gram heroin separated from heroin weighing 1099 grams. Were prepared by the police and only one parcel was sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination and report, therefore, the honourable Supreme Court held that it cannot be said with judicial certainty that the parcel containing sample heroin was sent to the.
Chemical Examiner.
7. In the case in hand 2 Kgs. Charas was recovered and report of Chemical Examiner is positive. It is also unbelievableki at this stage that police tried to snatch the foreign weapon from the applicant and on his hue and cry they took the applicant to Police Station and foisted upon him 2 Kgs.
Charas, which was lying in the Police Station.
8. In the ground No,7 of the bail application the applicant himself stated that he was holding licences for such foreign made Rifle as well as for 9 MM pistol which were not shown by the police but at the same time, the applicant failed to mention that any licence was shown by him to the police. The applicant has attached copy of licence issued for Rifle No,4932611 to show that this was the same= Rifle which was recovered from him and snatched by the police. It is also misconceived arguments at this stage that SIP Ashraf Ali instead of mentioning the foreign made rifle foisted upon the applicant one local made Rifle like K.K. The case under section 13(d) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance in respect of alleged rifle and K.K. Is still pending which transpires form the order of learned Special Judge dated 1-11-2011 whereby the bail application moved by the applicant was dismissed.
9. So far as the arguments that, all witnesses are police officials and even there was no mashir from the public, it is clear that section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act has excluded the applicability of section 103, Cr.P.C. The evidence of the police officials cannot be excluded from consideration and they are competent witnesses unless proved otherwise. Section 25 of C.N.S. Act speaks about the evidence of police officials which could be treated as good as the evidence of any other independent witness and the same cannot be discarded merely for the reasons that they are police officials.
10. The applicant was caught red-: handed while in possession of narcotic substance. Reasonable grounds exist for believing that he is connected with the commission of offence . So far as the question of further inquiry is concerned, it is well-settled now that possibility of further inquiry exits almost in every criminal case but in the present case, overwhelming material is available to connect the applicants with the commission of crime, hence no case is made out for treating the matter as one under section 497(2), Cr. P. C .
11. As a result of above discussion bail application is dismissed. Since the charge has been framed and the matter is already fixed for evidence, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of two months.