' SHEIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.--- Briefly stated the facts are that on 24-4-1995 at 5-30 p.m. Shahzada Alamgir F.I.O., A.N.F. (P.W .4) alongwith other officials was present at Gondal Chowk in connection with checking of narcotics. He received a secret information that a huge quantity of narcotic was being smuggled through Car No,MR-8732 from N.-W.F.P. To Punjab Province. In the meanwhile, Iftikhar Ahmad, S.-I./S.H.O. Of Police Station Rangoo with his patrolling party also reached there.
Accordingly, a raiding party was constituted and reached village Matani at 615 p.m. They concealed the official vehicle under the cluster of trees near the well of Sher Afzal and started waiting for the said vehicle. At 7-45 p.m., the said vehicle came from the side of River Indus and was made to stop by standing official jeep on the road. The driver of the said vehicle tried to run away by reversing the said vehicle. However, it was struck in the fields. Thereupon, its driver and the person sitting on the front seat, who being known to him was identified to be Abdul Hassan son of Sher Hassan, left the car and started running. Some of the officials of the raiding party tried to apprehend them but their efforts failed. However, the occupants of the rear seat were apprehended and they disclosed their names Amanullah alias Aman and Imtiaz Khan son of Sher Habib. The raiding party then conducted search of the said vehicle and found 12 bags of Charas containing 242 Littars weighing about 252 kilograms. The complainant separated 10 grams from each Littar and as such collected 2420 grams of Charas for sending to the Chemical Examiner. He prepared four other parcels of the remaining Charas and as such prepared five sealed parcels on the spot. As a result of further search of the vehicle, duplicate registration book P,5 and driving licence of Fazal Subhan P.6 were also recovered. The accused Amanullah further disclosed that the said Charas was given to them by Qaisar Khan son of Sardar Khan of Khyber Agency, and was to be delivered at Lahore. Consequently, complainant (P.W.4) lodged complaint Exh.P.C. And sent the same to the police station for formal registration of case through Muhammad Kausar, Constable.
2. The complainant Shahzada Alamgir, F.I.O. A.N.F. (P.W.4) then started investigation of this case. He prepared rough site plan of place of occurrence Exh.P.D., despatched the sample parcels to the office of Chemical Examiner, obtained warrants Exhs.P.E. And P.F. Against Fazal Subhan and Abdul Hassan, moved an application Exh.P.G. For obtaining proclamations against the said accused and consequently, obtained the same Exhs.P.H.. And P.I. And then requested for proceeding against them under section 512, Cr.P.C. After usual investigation, he submitted the challan in Court against the accused/appellants.
3. A charge under section 9(c), C.N.S.O., 1995 was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home guilt to the accused, prosecution examined P.W.1 Ghulam Farid Headconstable, who deposed that on 24-4-1995, he was posted as Moharrir at Police Station Rango when he was given five sealed parcels by Shahzada Alamgir, F.I.O., A.N.F. (P.W.4) for keeping the same in Malkhana. He further deposed that on 26-4-1995, he delivered sample parcel to Muhammad Rukhsar, Constable (P.W.2) for onwards transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner, Rawalpindi. Muhammad Rukhsar (P.W.2) corroborated the statement of P.W.1 regarding the entrustment of sample parcel and its intact delivery on the same day in the office of Chemical Examiner. Muhammad Manzoor-ul-Haq H.C. (P.W.3) is a member of the raiding party and corroborated the prosecution version appearing in complaint Exh.P.C. Shahzada Alamgir, F.I.O., A.N.F. (P.W.4) is the complainant and Investigating Officer of this case, whose evidence has already been discussed above. Mian Mushtaq, A.S.-I. (P.W.5) scribed the F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 on the basis of complaint Exh.P.C. Then learned P.P. Produced report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.J. And closed the prosecution case vide statement, dated 4-10-1997.
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused Amanullah denied the prosecution version and in reply to question No,7 as to why he had been involved in this case stated as follows:- - "I am a poor labourer. Work at Rawalpindi. Occasionally visits my home. On the day of my arrest I alongwith Imtiaz accused was coming from Rawalpindi. When the bus reached Gondal Chowk, I and Imtiaz accused in order to take food alighted from the said bus. There was gathering at Gondal Chowk at that time. We suspected that there might be an accidental case, we in order to see the said accident became close to the crowd but at that time a narcotics staff arrested me and co-accused Imtiaz Ahmad at that time I saw Car No,MR-8732, standing there. Narcotics Staff involved us in this case falsely and real culprits were let off. It was evening time when we alighted from the bus at Gondal Chowk. All the witnesses are narcotics force officials and are interested in the success of their case, therefore, they falsely deposed against me."
' Similarly, the accused Imtiaz Khan denied the prosecution version and adopted the statement of his co-accused as given above.
6. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted the accused under section 9(c), C.N.S.A. And sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,1,00,000 each or in default thereof to further undergo R.I. For three years each. However, they were extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
7. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment, the accused Amanullah has filed the instant appeal, whereas accused/appellant Imtiaz Khan has preferred Criminal Appeal No,196 of 1997. As both these appeals arise out of one judgment, so these are being disposed of by this single judgment.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned A.A.-G. For the State and have gone through the record minutely.
9. Main contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that Shahzada Alamgir, F.I.O., A.N.F.
(P.W.4) being complainant was not competent to investigate the case and as such investigation is tainted with mala fide, that neither appellants travelled in the vehicle P.7 nor they were apprehended on the spot as alleged by the prosecution, that they have been made a scape-goat as the actual occupants were let off and they were implicated as they happened to be present at Gondal Chowk, just to show their efficiency, that it does not appeal to reason that driver and other person could succeed in decamping from the place of occurrence in the presence of such heavy contingent of police, that it has come on record that scales and weights used in weighing the narcotics were secured from a shopkeeper of . Gondal Chowk which fact proves that the vehicle was intercepted at Gotfdal Chowk and not at the place alleged in the complaint, that all these facts make the case of the prosecution highly doubtful and as such, the judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He, however, submitted that if his submissions do not find favour then he would request for reducing the sentence awarded to the appellants, as their role at the most is of a carrier.
10. Conversely, the impugned judgment has been supported by the learned A.A.-G. For the State.
11. The main attack of learned counsel fcr the appellants is that Shahzada Alamgir, F.I.O., A.N.F.
(P.W.4) being a complainant could not investigate the case. This plea is devoid of force, as he is fully competent to investigate case by virtue of powers conferred upon him under the Control of Narcotics and Substances Ordinance, Act. So far as the question of establishing case against the accused/appellants is concerned, besides the statement of complainant (P.W.4), prosecution has also examined P.W.3 who is also a member of the raiding party and he has fully corroborated the prosecution version. Both P.Ws.3 and 4 have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination and learned defence counsel has failed to point out any material discrepancy in their statements. The stand of appellants that they were not travelling in the said vehicle and were involved falsely as they happened to be present at Gondal Chowk is devoid of any force. As had there been any truth in their stand, they could examine any other person in their defence but they failed to do so. On the other hand, they have failed to aduce any evidence to show that P.Ws.3 and 4 had got any enmity against them and were even known to them prior to this occurrence. Under these circumstances, the question of their false involvement or substituting them does not arise.
12. The appellants have been found travelling in the vehicle, out of which 252 kilograms of Charas was recovered at the relevant time. The recovery of said Charas stands proved from the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4. Both these P.Ws. Have been cross-examined at length and even then defence counsel failed to shatter their evidence. Thus, prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond any shadow of doubt. However, the facts reveal that their services have been acquired as carriers only. Thus, keeping their said role, we feel that sentence awarded to them is an excessive one. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction and sentence of fine, we reduce the sentence of R.I. For 10 years. The appellants shall, however, be entitled to the benefit of section 382- B, Cr.P.C.
13. With the modification in the sentence awarded to the appellants, the appeal stands dismissed.