' Abdul Sami Khan, J.--Abdul Khaliq and Muhammad Irfan appellants, by filing the instant appeal, have challenged judgment dated 03.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pasrur, in case FIR No, 323/2009 dated 9.12.2009, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station City Pasrur, whereby they were held guilty under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs, 5,00,000/- (Rs, Five lacs) each and in case of default in payment of fine, they shall further undergo three years SI each, however, benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to them.
2. Precisely, the prosecution story as narrated in the complaint and FIR (Ex.PB and Ex.PB/1) is that 09.12.2009, the complainant Asghar Ali SI along with Muhammad Iqbal 764/HC, Javed Iqbal 1109/C, Murtaza Saddique 997/C, Mudassar Hussain 916/C, Ghulam Murtaza 1221/C was present on Daska More and he saw a Truck No, 119/TKT coming on Daska Road and after seeing the police party, the truck stopped at some distance. The police party went towards the truck and encircled it and alighted the truck driver Abdul Khaliq and conductor Muhammad Irfan from the truck and inspected the truck and on their search "Pukki" (poppy leafs) were found to be loaded on the truck.
The poppy leafs recovered from the truck consisted of 75 Toray containing, 23 Kilograms each, total weighing 43 mounds and 05 kilograms. One kilogram poppy leafs was separated from each Tora for sample and the same was made ihto a sealed parcels for Chemical Examiner and rest of the poppy leafs (P. 1/1-75) and truck P.2 was took into possession through recovery memo. Ex.PA attested by Muhammad Iqbal 764/HC and Javed Iqbal 1109/C.
3. On indictment of the appellants, the trial commenced. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution produced five witnesses, namely, Asghar Ali SI (PW.1), Javed Iqbal 1109/C (PW.2), Ahsan Ullah 658/HC (PW.3), Mushtaq Ahmad 399/C (PW.4), and Muhammad Arshad ASI (PW.5).
Thereafter, the appellants was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. Whereby they proclaimed innocence in the matter. Both the appellants opted not to appear as their own witness as envisaged under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And opted to produce defense evidence. In defense they produced Muhammad Aslam as DW.1. After culmination of trial, the learned trial Court pronounced its verdict and awarded punishment to the appellants as mentioned in Paragraph No, 1 above, hence this appeal before us.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, they deserves clean acquittal. On the other hand, learned DDPP submits that sufficient evidence has been placed on record, through which the prosecution has successfully brought the guilt of the appellants to the hilt.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
It has been observed by us that Abdul Khaliq and Muhammad Irfan appellants were apprehended by the police party at the spot when they were carrying 75 Toray containing 43 mounds and 05 kilograms of poppy leafs through truck No, 119/TKT coming on Daska Road. During trial, Asghar Ali SI/complainant (PW.1) and the attesting witness of recovery namely Javed Iqbal 1109/C (PW.2) testified about the guilt of the appellants as stated in complaint and FIR (Ex.PB and Ex.PB/1) and there is nothing in their statements which could render them unreliable witnesses so as to extend any benefit to the appellants in respect of their conviction. All the prosecution witnesses have made consistent statements before the learned trial Court pointing accusing fingers towards the appellants as the culprit of the offence. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of arguments, also remained unable to point out any glaring contradiction which could create any doubt in the prosecution story so as to extend its benefit in favor of the appellants vis- a-vis to convince us to acquit them of the charge. The report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PD) reveals that sealed parcels 75 in number received for chemical analysis, contained post. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that there is violation of Section 103, Cr.P.C. In this case as no private person was associated during recovery proceedings. In this regard, we may observe here that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997 exclude the application of Section 103, Cr.P.C. In such like cases. It is also settled law that the evidence of police officials is as worthy of credence as that of any other witness and conviction cannot be set' aside on this score alone. On the other hand, the appellants has A remained unable to point out background of animosity between them and police officials to justify their falste implication in this case. We have thrashed out the prosecution case and found that the judgment of the learned trial Court regarding conviction and sentence of the appellants on the charge of offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing of 43 mounds and five kilograms of poppy leafs does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. For what has been discussed above we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. Resultantly the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants. Abdul Khaliq and Muhammad Irfan mentioned in Para No, 1 of the judgment by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 03.07.2010 is maintained and upheld.
With these observations, Criminal Appeal No, 1904 of 2010 of both appellants Abdul Khalid and Muhammad Irfan stands dismissed.