1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court calls in question judgment, dated 17th of March, 1998 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants calling in question their conviction and sentences on the charge under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. ' Appellants Shadoo and Aslam were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Larkana for having committed an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition and at the conclusion of the trial were convicted and sentenced to four years' R.I. Each, and to pay fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default thereof, to further suffer S.I. Fox six months besides infliction of 30 stripes each vide judgment, dated 7th of February, 1998. On appeal as stated above, a learned Single Judge of the Federal Shariat Court maintained their conviction and sentences in terms of judgment impugned herein.
3. On 15-10-1998 both the appellants were admitted to post-arrest bail and leave was granted to determine whether appellant Aslam could be held guilty of the offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition and whether the sentence awarded to appellant Shadoo was justified particularly when the sentence provided for the offence is two years.
4. ' On 9-2-1990 at about 11-30 p.m. Head Constable Haji Ranjhan alongwith other police officials was present at Mour Shah Hotel in connection with patrol duty and had noticed that appellants on the sight of the Police, had tried to slip away. It is alleged that appellant Shadoo was apprehended while appellant Aslam made good his escape having thrown a basket on the spot. On his personal search 30 grain Charas was recovered from Shadoo whereas 30 gram heroine was found in the bag ,stated to have been thrown by appellant Aslam at the spot. The police had prepared the recovery memo. In respect of the items recovered separately. On interrogation, appellant Shadoo had disclosed the name of the appellant Aslam. After completion of usual investigation challan was prepared and submitted before the trial Court indicating appellant Aslam as absconder. It is stated appellant Aslam was arrested on 11-4-1990 and thus a supplementary challan was submitted against him as well ' On 13th of September, 1992 the learned trial Judge had framed the charge against both the appellants on the charge under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code which the appellant had denied professing their innocence and false implication: In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution had produced only Ranjhan Khan, Head Constable who had lodged the complaint and had prepared the recovery memo. Exh.P.8, witnessed and attested by P.W.2 namely Sher Muhammad vide report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.14 both the samples were declared as Charas and heroin respectively.
5. ' The main contention canvassed on behalf of the appellants was that there was no credible evidence against appellant Aslam to connect him with the commission of offence because he could not be apprehended at the spot and, that the samples were dispatched to the Chemical Examiner with a considerable delay of more than a month and lastly that veracity of the recovery was not above board on account of non-association of any independent witness from the vicinity of the area On perusal of the record, we find force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants because admittedly police had kept the parcels with it and had transmitted the same to the Chemical Examiner for their analysis after a considerable delay of more than a month; furthermore, the recovery attributed to appellant Aslam does not in any manner connect him with the commission of offence, therefore, no sanctity can be attached thereto. It is unintelligible as to why none of the independent witness was associated in the recovery proceedings. All these factors in our view speak volume of the conduct of the Investigating Agency. Occurrence had taken place on 9-2-1990, appellant Shadoo was taken into custody at the spot while appellant Aslam was arrested on 11-4-1990; leave granting order reveals that they were released on bail by this Court on 15-10-1998. Understandably, by now the appellants have sufficiently undergone the rigors of trial during the entire decade, therefore, we would partly allow this appeal with the result that appellant Aslam is acquitted of the charge and the sentence already undergone by appellant Shadoo would be deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Sureties of the appellants shall stand discharged of the bail bonds furnished by them on behalf of the appellants in terms of order dated 15-10-1998.