Sardar Ahmed Naeem, J.--The appellant, namely , Muhammad Anwar was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera Virkan in case F.I.R. No. 158/2016 dated 18.05.2016, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Tatlay Aali, Mianw ali who vide judgment dated 19.09.2017 held the appellant guilty , convicted him under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 8,000/- in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
The appellant-convict was given benefit of Section 382-B,Cr .P.C.
2. Calling in question the impugned judgment, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 18.05.2016 at about 02:45 p.m. 1500 gram Bhukki was recovered from a polythene bag then held by the accused-appellant.
4. After the completion of investigation the appellant was challaned. He was charge sheeted on 22.09.2016. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To establish its case, the prosecution examined Gareeb Aalam 2213/HC (PW.1), Ali Anwar , A.S.I (PW.2), Ali Hassan 3859/C (PW .3), Sana Ullah, A.S.I. (PW .4) and Muhammad Shafi, S.I. (PW .5).
5. Learned Assistant District Public Prose cutor gave up Rafaqat Ali 911/C, constable being un-necessary and after tendering into evidence reports of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Exh.PD) closed the prosecution evidence.
6. The appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations leveled against him. He neither appeared as his own witness under Section 340(2), Cr .P.C. nor produced any evidence in defence.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no independent witness was cited by the prosecution; that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were full of contradictions/discrepancies, fatal to prosecution; that the safe custody and transmission of the case property was also not proved and that the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency being inconclusive was of no help to the prosecution.
8. Learned District Public Prosecutor opposed this appeal with vehemence.
9. Heard. Available record perused.
10. A police contingent headed by Sana Ullah, A.S.I. (PW.4) intercepted the appellant on 18.05.2016 at 02:45 p.m. at Chowk Tatlay Aali, while he was coming from Nowshera Virkan Road, Gujranwala. Upon his search, a polythene bag was taken into possession having 1550 gram Bhukki. After observing the formalities, the officer handed over the accused and the case property to Ghareeb Aalam (PW. 1), who handed over the said property to Sana Ullah, A.S.I. (PW.4) on 03.06.2016 for its onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner . Admittedly , the occurrence took place on a thoroughfare and no independent witness was cited by the prosecution but police witnesses are as good as any other , in particular , when no enmity is assigned to any of the witness. They have supported the prosecution version by making their statements on oath and withstood the test of cross-examination successfully . During the cross-examinatio n, no dent was created by the defence. They have supported each other on all material aspects. The defence also could not shake during the cross-examination the veracity of the recovery witnesses. They have unanimously justified that on the date, time and place of occurrence, 1500 gram Bhukki was recovered from a polythene bag then held by the appellant in his hand while he was coming from Nowshera Road.
The defence has not thrown serious challenge either to the recovered charas or if it was tampered with at Malkhana or during transmission. All the witnesses had described the events in a natural sequence. Their statements are further supported by the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency which has been drawn under the law/rules. The report depicts that the contraband material recovered from the appellant was Bhukki The appellant has not challenged if the recovered material was ,not Bhukki or something else. The plea raised by the appellant in his statement recorded unde r Section 342, Cr.P.C. also get no support from the material available on the file. He himself did not appear as his own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. in support of his plea. He also not produced any other evidence in his defence, thus, the defence plea appears to be afterthought and absurd.
11. The above discussion leads us to hold that it was a daylight occurrence. Sizeable quantity of contraband Bhukki was recovered from the appellant, which cannot be foisted by the police through its own source. The witnesses had no animosity for his false implication They withstood the test of cross-examination firmly and remained unshaken on all material aspects of the case. We have come to an inescapable conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.
12. In view of the above, there is not merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
The case property shall be dealt with as directed by the learned trial Court and record be remitted immediately .