Qalandar Ali Khan, J.--This appeal filed by Noor Zali Shah, appellant, is against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, Kohat dated 31.03.2012, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs, 2,00,000/- (two lacs) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 06 months Simple imprisonment under Section 9 (C)
CNSA.
2. Having been arrested after recovery of 26400 grams 'Chars' from the secret cavity of the upper portion of his Pickup No, 4797- C/DIK, the appellant faced trial under Section 9 (C) of Control of Narcotics Substances Act; and, on the conclusion of trial, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
3. The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and hearing Learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, arrived at the conclusion that case of the prosecution was proved against the appellant to warrant his conviction and sentence.
4. The prosecution had produced complainant Wali Bat Khan IHC (PW.7), marginal witness to the recovery memo. ExPW6/1, Mubarak Husain LHC (PW6) and Investigating Officer Muhammad Aslam Khan (PW8), besides other 'formal witnesses to prove recovery of contraband 'Chars' weighing 26400 grams from cavity of the upper part of the body of Pickup of the Appellant No, 4797-C/DIK. In addition to the oral testimony of the said PWs, the prosecution also produced the Pickup wherefrom 'Chars' was recovered, along with registration and the license in the name of the appellant in order to connect the appellant with the offence. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) was made available, which further augmented case of the prosecution against the appellant by declaring the sample as "Chars".
5. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the samples collected from the packets allegedly recovered from the appellant, were not sent to the FSL on the same day and remained with the police for around 5 days, thus making the positive report of FSL questionable; but it is by now well established that unless there is evidence with regard to tampering with the sample or its substitution before sending the same to the FSL no doubt can be cast about the authenticity of the report of the FSL. On the other hand, the prosecution produced PWs (PW2 & PW4) to prove safe custody of the samples during the intervening period, testimony of whom mained unshattered.
Besides, neither mala fide nor has been imputed to the prosecution, nor there is any suggestion forthcoming on record to that effect.
6. In the face of corroborative and coherent depositions of the complainant and marginal witness; so called absence of signature of one of the marginal witness on the recovery memo. And omission to mention presence of child in the pickup at the time recovery of 'Chars' from that pickup, being of no consequence, would be of no significance for arriving at a different conclusions in favour of the respondent/ accused.
7. Besides, nothing could be brought on record to dislodge case of the prosecution proving recovery of 26400 grams 'Chars' from the secret cavity of upper part of the pickup owned and possessed by the accused/respondent who was arrested red handed while transporting the same in the pickup. Neither the recovery of the contraband 'Chars' from the pickup, nor ownership and possession of the vehicle could be disproved; while role of the prosecution/police in the recovery remained aboveboard without being impeached by the defence, The samples separated from the bulk on the spot immediately after recovery in the presence of witnesses, received a positive finding from the FSL, which could not be seriously challenged, as nothing was brought on record with regard to tampering with or substitution of the samples before their examination in the FSL.
The accused/appellant, who is resident of Orakzai Agency, could not furnish explanation for his presence in such circumstances, and presence along with the pickup loaded with 'Chars' in the secret cavity of the pickup. Needless to say that police officers are as good witnesses as any other, unless mala fide or malice is attributed to them.
8. Consequently, nothing appear to us in the detailed judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, comprehensively covering all aspects of the case, to interfere with the same. Resultantly, the impugned judgment/order of the learned Sessions Judge Kohat dated 31.03.2012 and the conviction and sentence of the accused/respondent thereby, are upheld, and the as a consequence thereof.
(A.S) .