ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.----Ali Bakhsh son of Madad Khan, the appellant through the instant criminal appeal has called into question the judgment dated 5th February 2020 ("impugned judgmen t") rendered by learned Special Judge CNS Mach vide which the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter "the Act") and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with payment of Rs.100;000/- as fine and in default whereof to further undergo S.I for six months. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C was also extended in favour of the appellant.
2. Brief and essential facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.01.2019 Pir Bakhsh Bugti SI/SHO PS Saddar Mach District Kachhi (PW-1) received spy information that huge quantity of Charas would be smuggled through a Pickup bearing registration No.AL-0640 to Dhadar; that he along with other police officials of PS Saddar Mach put up a Naka Bandi at National Highway Shaheed Zahoor check-post; that at about 7:15 am the said vehicle came from Quetta, which was stopped for checking; that on the query the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name name Ali Bakhsh, son of Madad Khan. During checking of the pickup 40 packets of charas were recovered from secrete cavities of the vehicle, each packet weighing 1 kilogram, total 40 kilograms, which were sealed and parcel No.1 was prepared. The charas and vehicle were taken into possession vide recovery memo, and the accused was arrested, and case FIR No.53 of 2019 (Ex.P/5-A) was registered against the appellant/accused.
3. The investigation was entrusted to SI Abdul Jabbar (PW-5). On completion of the investigation, finding the accused/appellant involved in the crime, the investigation officer challaned him to the trial court. At the trial on the refusal of the appellant, the prosecution produced its evidence. Thereafter the appellant was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C who denied and dismissed each piece of prosecution evidence and claimed innocence.
However , finding the evidence of prosec ution worthy of credence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted above.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned DPG for the State and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. While going through the prosecution evidence, especially the statements of Abdul Malik Head Constable (PW-2) the recovery witness and Pir Bakhsh SI/SHO (PW-1) the complainant, we are of the considered view that both these witnesses remained consistent and firm qua the recovery effected from the appellant. Though they were tested through lengthy cross-examination but their evidence could not be shattered . Apparently , sufficient evidence is available on record to prove the guilt of the appellant and he being a driver of the vehicle was in charge of the vehicle and his culpability is established beyond the shadow of a doubt. Though he has taken the stance in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C that he is innocent and has falsely been involved into the case due to exchange of hot words with the SHO, but despite that he neither opted to record his statement under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C nor any evidence was produced by him in his defense. Mere bald and general assertions are not sufficient to discard the overwhelming prosecution evidence. The appellant was admittedly driving the car from which the alleged narcotics were recovered. He being the driver was well within the knowledge about the concealment of narcotics in the vehicle. Reference in this respect, if needed, can be made to Kashif Amir v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 1052 ), Ghulam Qadir v. The State (PLD 2006 SC 61) and Riaz Mian v. The State (2014 SCMR 1 165).
6. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to violation of section 103, Cr.P.0 it would be appropriate to refer Section 25 of the Act, which reads as under: "25. Mode of making searches and arrest:--- The provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, except those of section 103, Cr.P.C shall mutatis mutandis, apply to all searches and arrests in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 to all warrants issued and arrest, searches made under these sections."
A bare perusal of above section would reveal that the applicability of section 103, Cr.P.C. in the narcotics cases has been excluded and non-association of any private person as a witness is not a serious defect to vitiate the conviction. So. far the evidence of police officials is concerned, they are competent witnesses, and their evidence cannot be discarded, only for the reason that they are police officials. They have furnished straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution witnesses being police officials by itself cannot be considered as a valid reason to discard their statements/evidence. The reference in this context is made to the case of Zaffar v . The State (2008 SCMR 1254 ), the Hon'ble Supreme of Pakistan has held that- "Police employees are the competent witnesses like any other witnesses and their testimonies cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are police officials."
7. It has been argued before us that the report submitted by the Chemical Examiner did not mention necessary protocols followed or the test applied, but we have seen the said report available on the record of the trial court.
(Ex.P/5-C) and have found that the said report not only referred the protocols adopted but also all the tests applied, and, thus, we have not been able to find any deficiency in the said report.
8. The next contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the recovered charas was not safely transmitted to the office,. of the chemical examiner . Suffice is to say that the prosecution has examined PW.3 Wazir Ahmed.
According to him on 9-11-2019 he was posted as Head Mohara. The investigation officer handed over Parcel No.1 of 40 Kilograms of charas to him and he being in charge of Malkhana kept the said parcel in safe custody and on 11.12.2019 on the direction of SI/SHO Pir Bakhsh Bugti he sent the parcel No.1 to the chemical examiner and handed over to ASI Ali Ahmed. The prose cution produced ASI Ali Ahmed as PW-4, he stated in his statement that on 11.12.2019 through Mad number 15 the parcel No.1 of 40 kilograms of charas was handed over to him by the SHO for depositing the same in the office of the chemical examiner Quetta and on the same day, he deposited the property in the officer of the chemical examiner after obtaining the receipt, which shows that the property was safely transmitted to the office of the chemical examiner and the officer of the chemical examiner received the case property in sealed condition. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that it was not transmitted safely to the of fice of chemical examiner has no force.
9. Now addressing the question of delay in transmission of the sample parcel to the office of the chemical examiner . It is noted that the alleged recovery was effected on 09.11.2019, whereas the sample parcel was sent to the chemical examiner on 11.12.2019. However , the delay was explained by PW-5 Abdul Jabbar SI, the investigation officer and he stated in his statement that on 10.11.2019 he wrote a letter to the high-ups of the police department for permission for sending the case property to chemical examiner's report. Meaning thereby , that the investigation officer has taken the initiative on the very next date of recovery from the appellant for depositing the case property to the of fice of the chemical examiner .
10. Perusal of Rules 4 and 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 reveals that the said Rules do not put any bar on investigating officer to send samples beyond seventy-two hours of seizure of substance. Such rules are directory and not mandatory and could not control substantive provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which were to be applied in such a manner that their operation did not frustrate the purpose of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Thus, failure to follow the said rules does not render the seizure of the alleged substance as an absolute nullity . Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to establish that the said parcel was even tampered with instead the evidence lead by the prosecution established that the parcel received by the agency remained intact. To this effect the statement of PW-3 Wazir Ahmed and PW-4 ASI Ali Ahmed went un-rebutted. Therefore, the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the case property to the of fice of the chemical examiner .
Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that prosecution has succeeded to bring the guilt of the accused/appellant at home and has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of a doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any material illegality or serious infirmity committed by the trial court while passing the impug ned judgment, which in our humble view, is based on proper appreciation of evidence and same does not call for any interference. Accordingly , the instant Criminal Appeal No.(S) 20 of 220 being devoid of merit is dismissed.