CH. MUSHTAQ AHMED, J.--- This judgment will dispose of above captioned criminal appeal filed by Rafaqat Ali, appellant who was convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala in case FIR No,99 dated 21.2.2006 registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station, People Colony, Gujranwala vide impugned judgment dated 13.9.2006 and sentenced to. Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs,10,000/- and in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months with benefit of section 382-B, Cr . P. C .
2. Case of prosecution as contained in FIR (Exh.PB/1) is that on 21.2.2006 at about 1.15 p.m. Zahoor Hussain, Inspector (PW-5) along with. Sanaullah ASI, Ijaz Haider, Muhammad Boota, Rehmat Ali and Sadaf Saleem, all constables was present at Haideri Road Disposal Pump. Accused (appellant)
Rafaqat Ali came there from the direction of Railway Line lifting a sack on his head. Seeing the police party he attempted to decamp but was apprehended. On checking the sack 40 K.G. Poast was found in it being carried by him out of which one K.G. Poast was separated for chemical analysis. Both sample parcel and remaining bulk were sealed into two parcels and taken in, possession vide recovery memo Exh.PA.
3. At the trial, prosecution, in order to prove, its case produced six witnesses in all. PW -1 Nadeem Akhter, LHC/1921 as Moharrir kept sealed parcels in Malkhana. PW-2 Ghulam Mustafa, C-968 took the sample parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner. PW-3 Sana Ullah, ASI and PW-4 ljaz Hussain,.
S.I. are the recovery witnesses who fully supported the charge against the appellant. PW-5 Mian Zahoor Shaheen, Inspector conducted the investigation of this case. PW-6 Muhammad Sharif, S.I. recorded the FIR. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor after giving up Ijaz Hussain, Constable- 189 being un-necessary and by tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PD, closed the prosecution case.
5. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegation levelled against him. He neither offered to make statement on oath under section 340(2)
Cr.P.C. nor opted to produce defense evidence.
6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant as well as learned Law officer and have also gone through the record.
7. The prosecution has relied on the statements of recovery witnesses, namely, PW-3 Sana Ullah, ASI complainant and PW-4 Ijaz Hussain, S.I. as well as PW-5 Mian Zahoor, Inspector/I.O. apart from report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PD). It is case of the prosecution that appellant was caught red handed while in possession of 40 K:V. Poast packed in sack out of which one K.G. was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner through PW-2 Ghulam Mustafa, Constable. The version of PW-3 Sana Ullah, ASI/complainant was fully supported by PW-4 Ijaz Hussain, S.I. who explained that Post was recovered in the shape of bulk which on weighing came to 40 K.G. out of which one K.G. was separated for analysis. Both the witnesses were put to lengthy cross-examination but the defence could not shatter their testimony on material points like date, time and place of recovery of contraband material from the appellant which by chemical examiner was declared as Post vide report Exh.PD.
8. Though case of prosecution is based on the testimony of police officials only but no ill-will or animosity was brought on record during investigation and trial that could prompt the police witnesses to falsely involve the appellant in this case by showing recovery of huge quantity of narcotics. Moreover non-association of members of public in recovery proceedings was neither a requirement of law nor an absolute rule. The main aim and object of enacting. section 103, Cr.P.C. was to ensure that search and recovery was conducted honestly and fairly and to exclude any possibility of concoction and transgression. Section 103, Cr.P.C. was never meant to disbelieve statements of official witnesses under any circumstance. Moreover, it is a general tendency that people from public are reluctant to become witnesses due to fear of desperate persons involved in such like cases. Law is by now settled that police officials are as good and competent witnesses as anybody else unless they are proved to be inimical against the accused. Reliance may be placed on the cases titled "Yagoob Shah v. The State"(PLD 1976 SC 53), "Muhammad Naeem alias. Naeema v. The State" (1992 SCMR1617), "Muhammad Hanif v. The State"(2003 SCM R 1237), "Tariq Mehmood v.
The State" (PLD 2009 SC 39), "Zafar v. The State" (2008 SCM R 1254), "Abdul Rasheed v. The State"
(2009 SCM R 306) and "Ismail v. The State" (2010 SCM R 27). In the case titled "Yagoob Shah v. The State" reported in (PLD 1976 SC 53), in a murder case the accused was convicted and sentenced to death. Appeal filed there- against was dismissed by High Court. The matter came up before the Apex Court where it was argued that case against the convict was not proved beyond doubt as the prosecution has relied on the statements of police officials. It was noted with concern by the Apex Court that tragedy of general apathy and absence of civic duty to appear as witness by independent persons was there who were not prepared to say in Court what they had seen and thereby risk animosity of the assassin or his partisans. Testimony of the police officials was relied upon and conviction was maintained. In the case titled ''Muhammad Naeem v. The State" reported in (1992 SCM R 1617) testimony of police, officials was relied upon in a case of recovery of Kalashnikov from the accused holding that police officials were as good witnesses as any other citizen and unless any mala fide is established against them, their deposition annoy be brushed aside simply on the ground that they belong to the police department. In a case of recovery of narcotics titled "Muhammad Hanif v. The State" reported in (2003 SCM R 1237) it was observed that reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases was a judicially recognized fact and there was no option left but to consider the statement of an official witness as no legal bar had been imposed in that regard. It was observed that police officials were equally good witnesses and can be relied upon if their testimony remained un-shattered during cross examination. Similarly, in case titled "Zafar v. The State" which was a case under section 9(c) of C.N.S.A., 1997 it was laid down that police employees are competent witnesses like any other independent witness and their testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are police employees.
9. Moreover report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PD was also positive, which corroborated the ocular account furnished by the witnesses. Prosecution in this case has proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable of doubt. No valid ground is found to interfere with the findings recorded by learned trial court.
10. For the reasons recorded above, this criminal appeal is dismissed.