' FAZL-I-HAQ ABBASI, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5-3-2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court Kohat, whereby Pir Kalim appellant was convicted under section 9(c) C.N.S.A. 1997 and sentenced to undergo R.I. For four years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to suffer S.I. For one month, with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that Shah Dauran Khan S.H.O. (P.W.2) received information on 2- 9-2010 through an informer regarding smuggling of narcotic from Kohat to village Muslim Abad. On this information he along with Bahader Nawaz and Aslam Janan A.S.-Is. Held barricade at 1800 hours in front of Police Station Jarma, during which a Suzuki came from Kohat side which was stopped and a person sitting in front seat being suspected was deboarded and searched. He was having a polythene bag in his hand which contained two packets of Pukhta Charas each weighing 1000 grams as such 2000 grams in toto. 5/5 grams of Charas from each packet was separated and sealed into a parcel for sending the same to FSL for chemical analysis. The remaining quantity was separately sealed in parcel Exh.P.1. The Charas was secured through recovery memo Exh.P.W.2/1 in presence of marginal witnesses. Accused was arrested vide card Exh.P.W.2/2 and Murasila Exh.P.A/1 was sent to PS, where case was registered vide F.I.R. No.305 dated 2-9-2010 under section 9(c) C.N.S.A. 1997 at Police Station Jarma by Muhammad Khan MHC (P.W.2).
3. Investigation was conducted by Ghaziur Rehman S.-I. (P.W.4), who prepared the site plan Exh.P.B.
At the pointation of Shah Dauran S.H.O., recorded the statements of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C., applied for police custody of accused through application Exh.P.W.4/1, which was refused. He sent the samples to FSL through application Exh.P.W.4/2 and the report of the Chemical Examiner is Exh.P.Z., which is in positive.
4. After completion of the investigation Ghaziur Rehman (P.W.4) handed over the case file to S.H.O.
For submission of complete challan before the Court, as such trial was held and after conclusion the appellant was convicted and sentenced as referred' to in para No.l.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though according to prosecution the appellant was travelling in a Suzuki, but neither the driver nor any passenger of the said Suzuki was examined to support the prosecution case and that the prosecution witnesses are police officials, subordinate to the complainant, as such no reliance can be placed on their statements. Learned counsel argued that the occurrence took place on 2-9-2010, while the samples were sent to FSL on 6-9-2010 i.e. After more than 72 hours of the recovery, which casts doubts on the prosecution story.
In the alternative he argued that the appellant is a young man of 26 years of age and was never involved in any such-like case previously, as such deserves leniency in matter of sentence.
6. On the other hand learned counsel I or the State argued that the accused was apprehended red-handedly and that police officials had no enmity to involve the accused falsely by planting two K.Gs. Of Charas from their own. He further argued that no enmity whatsoever was suggested to the witnesses by defence for false implication of the accused and tampering with the case property.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. From the perusal of record it transpires that two K.Gs. Of Charas was recovered from the personal possession of the accused. No enmity or was suggested by the defence to the prosecution witnesses for false implication of the accused in a fabricated case. Police Officials are as good witnesses as any other, until and unless some enmity or ill-will with the accused is brought on the record. Recovery of contraband supported by the witnesses and positive report of the Chemical Examiner are sufficient to sustain conviction. However, the argument advanced by the learned defence counsel regarding the young age and his previous non-involvement in any such- like case could not be controverted by the State, which can be treated as mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser punishment. As such this appeal is partially allowed, conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is altered from four years' R.I. To two years R.I. While the sentence of fine and imprisonment for nonpayment of the same is maintained. With the above modification this appeal is disposed of.
Appeal party allowed.