' Appellant has assailed a judgment delivered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge III, Quetta on 6-3-1997 whereby he has been convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and sentenced to suffer R.I. For 4 years with fine of Rs,10,000 or in default to suffer S.I. For 6 months. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended to the appellant w,e,f, 25-6-1996.
2. Farid Ahmed, (P.W.2), S.I., C.I.A., City Quetta sent a complaint/Murasila (Exh.P/2-A) to Police Station Saryab District Quetta on 25-6-1996 on the basis of which an F.I.R. Was lodged at 6/5 p.m.
Allegations made in the complaint are that a secret information was received that a person was indulging into the business of narcotics at Sabzal Road, Quetta. On the basis of this information, at two different places roads were blocked by C.I.A. Staff under the supervision of D.S.P., C.I.A. And Inspector C.I.A. On 25-6-1996. At about 5/15 p.m. One suspicious person appeared at Sabzal Road, proceeding towards the University and was having something underneath his Chadar on his back.
On seeing the police party he tried to run away, but was over powered by the personnel of police.
On his personal search baked Charas weighing 2 kilos and 900 grams was recovered. This way opium weighing 1 kilo and 950 grams and one pistol' 22 bore were also recovered. After completion of the investigation that person, who is the present appellant, was challaned and charged under Article 4 of the said Order to which he did not plead guilty.
3. To prove its case. Prosecution examined four witnesses. Muhammad Ali (P.W.1), A.S.I., proved being a member of the raiding party and a Mashir of recovery memo. Vide. Exh.P/1-A. He produced in the trial Court the recovered Charas Article P.2 and opium Article P.4. He has also deposed about the recovery of one Pakistan made pistol. Farid Ahmed (P.W.2), A.S.I. And complainant has- proved the contents of his complaint Exh.P/2-A. Syed Abdul Jabbar (P.W.3), chemical expert, F.S.L., Quetta has proved that he received two sealed parcels from Police Station Saryab on 1-7-1996. Parcel No,1 contained 2900 grains of some suspected material and Parcel No,2 contained 1950 grams of suspected material of dark red colour. On chemical examination, the parcel. Containing 2900 grams was found to be Charas and another parcel was found to be opium. He also produced his report in this regard as Exh.P/3-A. Tariq (P.W.4), S.I. Has deposed about various steps of investigation taken by him. He has proved the despatch of the parcels of incriminating material to the chemical expert on 1-7-1996. He recorded statements of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C., and received the report of chemical expert on 12-7-1996 through S.I. Farid. Challan was prepared by Mehr Qadir Bux, but was produced by this witness as Exh.P/4-A. He has proved the signatures of Qadir Bux, I.P., who had worked with him and had prepared the challan.
4. In his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., the appellant has deposed in his defence as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Appellant has also examined one witness Muhammad Aslam in his defence as D.W.1. He has deposed that he knows appellant since six years who had resided in his village for about a year. He had not seen him in any wrong dealings nor there was any complaint against him. About eight months back he was called in the house of appellant where some stamp paper was being written about some land sold by Ahmed Shah to the appellant for a consideration of Rs,1 lac and he signed the deed as a witness.
5. I have heard the counsel for appellant and State. So far as the contention about the violation of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, by now it is an established principle of law that the witnesses of police are as good witnesses as any respectable independent witness from the locality provided that enmity with police is proved and that such suggestions are made to Investigating Officer and the material witnesses as to why independent Mashir for recovery were not arranged, and that the Investigating Officer etc. Are not able to explain this factum. In the present case no such suggestion has been made to Investigatiag Officer cross to the Invest gating Officer P .W.4) is quoted versium. {{URDU TEXT}} ' In the Lontext a careful reading of the principles enunciated in a judgment of the apex Court cited as PLD 1997 SC 408 brings me to the conclusion that the said judgment is distinguishable from the present case.
6. So far as the contention about belated despatch of the parcels containing incriminating material is concerned, it is based on the fact that the material was recovered on 25-6-1996, but was despatched to the chemical expert on 1-7-1996 vide -Investigating Officer's deposition. It was received on the same date by the chemical expert (P.W.3) vide his deposition. It means that the contrabands were sent by a delay of 6 days. This contention could have mattered, had there been any Suggestion and proof about the tampering with the parcels. It is not so. Syed Abdul Jabbar (P.W.3), chemical expert,. Has .Prtived that he received the parcels from Police Station Saryab in a sealed condition. Tariq (P.W4), S.I. And Investigating Officer has proved that these parcels were handed over to him on 25-6-1996 by Fari.d (P.W.2), S.I. And complainant in a sealed condition arid the same remained with him intact up to 1-7-1996 on which date he sent the same to the chemical expert. No suggestion has been made to any of the witnesses regarding tampering with the material. Report of chemical expert Exh.P/3-A is positive. The delay of six days sending the recovered narcotics has in no prejuiced the appellant. Consequently this contention is repelled.
7. Now remains the plea of defence. Such suggestions have been made to Muhammad Ali (P.W.1) that the appellant had purchased one four wall land for Rs,1 lac from Ahmed Shah, Khalazad of complainant Farid (P.W.2) and certain other suggestions in this regard, but all have been denied by this witness for want of knowledge. Farid (P.W.2), complainant, has denied being a Khalazad of Ahmed Shah. He also denied any dealings of purchase of land or the destruction of the stamp paper at the time of the payment of Rs, one lac by the appellant Tariq (P.W.4), Investigating Officer has also denied such suggestions where replies to cross have already been quoted verbatim as above.
' Appellant has examined himself on oath. His examination-in-chief has been quoted above. During cross, to a suggestion he has replied:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Muhammad Alam (D.W.1) has admitted during cross that it was not in his knowledge as to what type of business was carried by the appellant and that at the time of arrest the appellant was not residing in his village. This witness 'has not made any reference to the destruction of the stamp paper on which he had signed as a witness.
In view of this position, the plea of defence seems to be an afterthought and is I rejected accordingly.
2. Considering the above mentioned discussion, it stands proved that the prosecution has proved guilty of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall remain intact.