1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through the instant Criminal Appeal filed under section 410, Cr. P.C., appellant Asif son of Shaukat Hussain has impugned the Judgment dated 25-5-2010 passed by Special Judge-II (CNS) Karachi in Special Case No,252 of 2008 whereby he convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Million only) under section 9(c), CNS Act, 1997 in Crime No,13 of 2008 of P.S. Excise Malir, Karachi, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two yeaRs, ' According to the prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Excise Inspector Mushtaq Khokhar, on 3-9-2008 he received information at police station that some people are taking Chars towards Malir in a vehicle. On receiving such information he along with his staff reached Nehal Hospital and saw. a Red colour Suzuki and on pointation of informer the said Suzuki was stopped wherein two persons were sitting who disclosed their names as Asif and Liaquat. On search of the Suzuki bearing registration No,KB-8839, he recovered ten packets of charas, each weighing 1100 grams total 11 K.G. From back seat of the said vehicle. One packet of 1100 grams was separated for chemical examination and the remaining 9 packets were separately sealed and such mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared on the spot. The accused along with case property were brought at Excise Police Station where F.I.R. Was lodged. During interrogation the accused disclosed that absconding Sadiq Baloch and Majeed are their partneRs, After completion of investigation challan was submitted in the court.
2. ' At the trial prosecution examined P.W.1 Excise Dafadar Arif Masih, the mashir of arrest and recovery at Exh.7 who produced mashirnama as Exh.7/A, P.W.2 Excise Inspector Mushtaq Khokhar, the complainant and Investigating Officer of the case at Exh.8 who produced F.I.R. As Exh.8/A, letter whereby charas was sent to Chemical Examiner Exh.8/B, Chemical Examination Reports Exh.8/C and Exh.8/D and Charge Sheet Exh.8/E ' Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court has erred in law as well as on facts while convicting the appellant; that the charge framed against the appellant is illegal inasmuch as, per F.I.R. The alleged recovery was effected from backside of the driving seat whereas according to the Charge the alleged recovery was effected from the dash-board of the Suzuki; that there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence; that initially only one sample was sent to chemical examiner but subsequently remaining quantity of alleged recovery was also sent for chemical examination after a delay of 15 days without any explanation which makes the case doubtful; that there is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. As no private person was cited as mashir of recovery and that the complainant has himself investigated the case which has vitiated the entire investigation and subsequent proceedings. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and acquittal of the appellant. He relied upon the cases reported in PLD 2004 Karachi 201, PLD 2009 Karachi 191, 2010 PCr.LJ. 350 and PLD 2005 Karachi 128.
3. ' Conversely, Mr. Khadim I4ussain learned D.P.G. Supported the impugned judgment contending that huge quantity of charas has been recovered from the accused and that the appellant was arrested at the spot. He further contended that the judgment has been passed after taking into consideration all the material aspects of the case as well as the relevant law and cogent reasons have been assigned for convicting the accused; as such it needs no interference. He prayed for upholding the impugned judgment.
4. ' We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned D.P.G. For the State and have gone through the material available on the record.
5. So far as the alleged defect in the charge is concerned, that is not of much importance and not of such a nature as to vitiate the entire proceedings. Even otherwise at the very outset it was proposed to the learned counsel for the appellant that the case could be remanded to the trial court for framing amended charge to the appellant to which he did not agree.
6. As regards the contradictions in the prosecution evidence as pointed by the learned counsel, from a bare perusal of the evidence adduced before the trial court, it transpires that there is no contradiction B Ana the material aspects of the case. So far as minor discrepancies are concerned, it is now well settled that such minor discrepancies in the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses are to be ignored and no C importance could be attached thereto. In the case reported as Sardar Khan v. State (PLD 2005 Peshawar 166) it was held that contradiction means negation of prosecution version, merely discrepancy in the detail D of the fact does not amount to contradiction. In another case reported as Riaz Muhammad v. State (PLD 1993 FSC. 25) it was held that contradiction such as material was wrapped in khaki envelope or not, people from public gathered or not, chain of the handcuffed was in the hands of Ahsan or not, witness had gone on foot or on vehicle, chain of the handcuffed was in the hand of Imtiaz or not, are of no importance.
7. So far as delay in sending the sample to the chemical analyzer is concerned, suffice it to say that the language employed in Rules 4 to 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst Rules, 2001) coupled with the fact that no consequences for breach have been provided, make the rules advisory and not mandatory. These rules control the substantive Provisions of CNSA and to apply in such a manner that its operation would not frustrate the purpose of the Act under which these rules are framed. Furthermore, failure to follow the rules would not render the search, seizure and arrest under the CNSA absolute nullity and non-est. Since there was no objection that the contraband was unsealed or tampered with or manipulated, therefore delay would not affect the result of analysis. In this regard reliance may be placed on the cases reported in 2006 MLD 1121 and PLD 2006 Peshawar 39. In the case reported in PLD 2009 SC 39 it has been held by the apex court as under:-- "In directory provisions substantial compliance is sufficient and even where there is no compliance at all, the act is not invalidated by such non-compliance if the act otherwise is done in accordance with law. The delay otherwise in sending the incriminating articles to the concerned quarters for expert opinion cannot be treated fatal in the absence of objection regarding the same having been tampered with or manipulated. It was for the accused to have taken such plea before the trial Court but the appellant did not do so."
8. Furthermore, the report of the Chemical Analyzer is in positive and the defense has not disputed the nature of substance nor challenged the authenticity of the report of the Chemical Analyzer, neither the accused have brought on record substantive material to show that the report of the Chemical Analyzer was the result of tampering, manipulation nor any illegality or irregularity has been found in the test performance report of the Chemical Analyzer.
9. The contention that no private person has been associated to witness the recovery which shows that the. Case is false, is also devoid of force as the compliance of the provisions of section 103 Cr.P.C. Is excluded in CNS cases by virtue of section 25 of CNS Act, 1997. Even otherwise such fact alone will not render the prosecution case doubtful because it is settled law that weaknesses of the investigation, 'due to insufficiency of police or otherwise will not benefit the accused and damage the prosecution case. In this regard reference may be made to 2001 SCMR 36.
10. Regarding contention that complainant himself investigated the crime it may be observed that there is no legal prohibition for a police officer to be a complainant as well as Investigating Officer and in such K an event the trial is not vitiated. If any authority. Is needed, reference may be made to 2003 PCr.LJ 82. In PLD 2005 Karachi 4 it was held that complainant is competent to search the boat without search warrant. It is also now well settled that police officials are as good and respectable as IL other reliable witnesses.
11. ' We cannot close our eyes from a bitter reality that transportation of narcotics is a crime against the society which is increasing alarmingly in the country day-by-day thereby destroying the lives of youngsters, therefore such types of offences should be curbed with iron hands in order to save the young generation from being ruined. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and are not attracted to the facts of the case in hand.
12. Upon a minute scrutiny of the material available on the' record and the evidence adduced before the trial court, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has produced tangible and trust- worthy ocular and circumstantial evidence against the appellant to connect him with the commission of alleged offence. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.
13. ' Above are the reasons of our short order announced on 16-11-2012.