' The local police on 14-9-1996 at 11-45 a.m. Apprehended Muhammad Aslam appellant while present in his shop situated at "Pukhral Chowk", Khalabat Township and on his personal search recovered one kilogram "Charas". The accused was arrested and a case registered at Police Station Khalabat Township under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition Order, 1979 on the report of I.H.C.
Abdur Rashid. He on the completion of investigation faced trial before Additional Sessions Judge, Harper and convicted under Article 4 of the Order ibid on the conclusion of trial to six months' R.I.
With a fine of Rs,1,000 or 15 days' S.I. In default. Hence this appeal by the convict-accused.
2. 1 have heard Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and the Assistant Advocate- General. The record shows that Abdur Rashid, I.H.C. Along with F.Cs. Aurangzeb No,253 and Sher Afghan No,20 were on "Gasht" in the Ilaqa on 14-9-1996 and received a secret information that the appellant was selling "Chars" in his grocery shop situated in "Pukhral Chow". On this the police party went to the shop and on his personal search recovered one Kg. 'Chars" from the trouser fold of the accused. He was arrested. Four grams from the seized "Charas" was separated, sealed in a parcel and sent to the laboratory for examination. The accused on the completion of investigation was tried before Additional Se scions Judge, Ilaripur who on the conclusion of trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated before. The learned counsel , vehemently argued that th're being contradictions in the statements of the police officials, the very recovery of substance from the person of the appellant has become doubtful by stating, that the witnesses are at variance about color of the plastic bag in which the "Chars'' was wrapped or in which type of scale it was weighed. The recovery of the narcotic was made on 14-9-1996 whereas statements of the witnesses were recorded in Court on 10-10-1996 after the lapse of a period of more than one lye and as such witnesses can be at variance on . Minor particulars in evidence for which the prosecution case cannot be totally rolled down. Anyhow, all the witnesses are unanimous on material particulars relating to the recovery of one Kg. "Chars" from the trouser fold of the appellant in his shop at the relevant time.
3. The learned counsel next argued that "Chars" was not produced in evidence before the Court.
The argument does not succeed for the simple reason that the narcotic was not only p educed in evidence of the case before the Court during trial but exhibited in pre emcee of the learned counsel of the appellant. He stated further that no public ' witness was procured in support of search and recovery of the "Charas" which was made in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P C. And that the police did not also take a search warrant from a Magistrate under Article 22 of the Prohibition Order. No malice A on the part of the police is spelt out from the evidence On record or that huge quantity of "Chars" was falsely planted against the appellant. The police official is as good witness as ary person from the public. Strict compliance of the requirement of section 103, Cr.P.C. Could not be made in the circumstances of the case as the accused was starched in person on secret information and the police had also no time to obtain a search war .Ant. The learned A.A.-G. In support thereof rightly pressed Into service the ( ases Muhammad Khan v. The State 1994 SCM R 1543 and Mushtaq Ahmad v. ('he State 1995 SCM R 510.
We rather see from the writing of I.H.C. Abdur Rashid on the recovery memo. That no witness from public was ready for evidence. We also see from the record that four grams "Chars" was sent to the chemical examiner on the same day, i,e, 14-9-1996 which was received in the laboratory on 16-9- 1996. The last argument made by the learned counsel that one Kg. "Chars" cannot be concealed in a trouser fold is not acceptable for this simple reason that all the prosecution witnesses are unanimous on a point of fact that it was recovered from the trouser fold of the appellant at the relevant time in his shop.
4. In the circumstances I see that the prosecution having been able to prove their case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt he was rightly convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order, 1979 and sentenced as aforesaid. The appeal is dismissed and the appellant being on bail is taken into custody for utter going the sentence.