' Muhammad Jameel, petitioner was arrested on 24-5-1995 in pursuance of a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No 113/95 recorded at Police Station City Dunyapur of District Lodhran under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order of 1979.
2. The specific allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that on receiving secret information that the petitioner is a drug pusher, the local police apprehended him from near a mosque and on his personal search 25 grams of heroin was recovered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged recovery is of no avail because it is in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Because the alleged recovery has only been witnessed by the police officers while nobody from the public has been made a witness, and in this context learned counsel places reliance upon the case of Boota Masih v. State reported in 1993 PCr.LJ 1198.
4. I am afraid I cannot subscribe any longer to the view taken in the said order because the Supreme Court has been consistently taking the view that in the matter of recovery of narcotics a police officer is as good a witness as any other. The Supreme Court has also consistently taken a judicial notice of the fact that in our social set-up witnesses from the public do not come forward to give evidence particularly in cases of drug trafficking. This view was first taken in the case of Said Muhammad v. State reported in PLD 1990 SC 1176 wherein it was held that in case of narcotics a strict compliance of the requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. Cannot be made mandatory. The same view was repeated in the case of Mirza Shah v. State reported in 1992 SCM R 1475 and was once again reiterated in the case of Muhammad Khan v. State reported in 1994 SCM R 1543. The latest view of the Supreme Court is in line with the earlier cases and their Lordships once again reiterated that a police officer is as good a witness as any other in the case of Mushtaq Ahmad v. State reported in 1995 SCM R 510.
5. The offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for life and therefore the case falls within the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Which disentitles the petitioner to the grant of bail.
' Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.