' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- This appeal has been directed against the judgment, dated 9-3-2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar in case F.I.R. No,33, dated 29-1-2000 by which Jana Gul appellant has been convicted under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to undergo R.I. For three years and fine of Rs,1,000 or in default thereof to suffer further S.I. For one month. He was, however, awarded benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In the computation of his sentence.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29-1-2000 at about 19-45 hours complainant Rahim Dil, S.- I./S.H.O., Railway Police, Peshawar Cantt. Alongwith Aziz Muhammad and Zarif Khan F.Cs. Was busy in checking at the Railway Station, when he found a person roaming at the platform in suspicious condition. On inquiry he disclosed his name Jana Gul son of Khial Shah resident of Ani Zakha Khel Landi Kotal. The man was carrying a tin of Ghee in his hand. Upon search 1900 grams Charas was recovered from the tin, out of which ten grams was forwarded for Chemical examination. A case under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was accordingly registered at 20- 45 hours and appellant Jana Gul was formally.Arrested.
3. The prosecution at trial examined two witnesses namely S.-I. Reham D14' Khan (P.W.1) and F.C.
Zarif Khan (P.W.2) and abandoned F.C. Abdul Aziz as unnecessary.
4. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case and claimed to be innocent. In reply to a question as to why the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him, he stated:-- "I. Was standing on the door outside the station and was waiting for my cousin namely Jamil who was due from Dubai. In the meanwhile the Investigating Officer came alongwith constables. He apprehended me, took out the sum of Rs,1,500 .From my pocket and a wrist watch. On my demand of its return the Investigating Officer got annoyed. He insulted me, took me to the police station and involved me in the present case and did not return the said amount to me."
5. He also did not examine himself on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And also did not examine any person in defence.
6. Stand of Mr. Farooq Shah, learned counsel for the appellant is that though the recovery of Charas is alleged to have been made at a thickly populated place i,e, platform of Railway Station Peshawar Cantt. In presence of the passengers but no independent and disinterested witness has been associated with the recovery and thus legal requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have not been complied with. The learned counsel also reiterated that S.-I. Raham Dil P.W..Has combined in himself the duties of complainant, Investigating Officer and witness which has materially prejudiced the interest of the appellant. The learned counsel further contended that ocular account of the incident furnished by P.Ws. Rahim Dil Khan, S.-1. And Zarif Khan, F.C., is full of contradictions and discrepancies and the learned trial Judge had no justifiable reason to place implicit reliance on their testimony in the absence of corroborative evidence. The learned counsel further contended that prosecution has omitted to bring on record the evidence to demonstrate as to who incorporated the F.I.R. In this case on receipt of Murasila drafted by P.W.1 and who took the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory Lahore for the purpose of examination. Concluding the arguments the learned counsel reiterated that person charged with a criminal offence is to be saddled with the liability only if prosecution is found to have established its case against him beyond all reasonable doubt. To argument the contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following rulings:--
(a) Noorul Haq v. The State 1992 SCM R 1451,
(b) Tariq Parvez v. The State PLD 1995 SC 1345,
(c) Imran Saeed v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1365,
(d) Ijaz Khan and others v. The State and another 2001 YLR 2039, and
(e) Khalil Ahmad v. The State PLJ 2001 Cr.C. Lahore 1312.
7. Mr. Hamid Farooq Durrani, learned State Counsel, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and contended with justification that sufficient material was brought on record to connect the appellant with the guilt; that presence of the appellant at the platform stands admitted in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And that no suggestion is made to P.Ws. To show that they had any personal grudge against the appellant. He relied on the following judgments:--
(a) Munawar Hussain and 2 others v. The State 1993 SCM R 785, and
(b) Muhammad Farooq Afridi v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 196.
8. We have given due consideration to the arguments raised at the Bar and also perused the record.
9. After deep reappraisal of evidence we are convinced that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the appellant and A the impugned order hardly calls for interference of this Court. It stands proved from the material on record that on 29-1-2000 the appellant was apprehended by S.-I. Raham Dil Khan (P.W.) from the platform of Peshawar Cantt. Railway Station and Charas weighing 1900 grams was recovered from a tin of Ghee carried by the appellant. The plea of the appellant that nothing was recovered from him; that he was standing at the gate of the railway station to receive his cousin coming from Dubai and that when he refused to oblige the police officials, Charas was foisted upon him, is not convincing. Nothing has been produced in support of the assertion. Both the P.Ws. Namely S.-I. Raham Dil Khan and F.C. Zarif Khan have fully supported the prosecution case on all material particulars and nothing substantial could be elicited from them beneficial to the appellant.
10. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, regarding non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997 clearly excludes the application of section 103, Cr.P.C. To the cases under the aforesaid Act. Fida Gul v. The State 2002 SCMR 36 and Shahid Baloch v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 628.
11. An objection has also been raised on behalf of the appellant that P.W. Raham Dil Khan combined in himself the duties of complainant, Investigating Officer and witness to the occurrence which has prejudiced the interest of the appellant. The submission is not sustainable. It has been held time and again by the superior Courts that there is no legal prohibition for police official to be a complainant, a witness to the commission of offence and also to be an Investigating Officer, so far as, it does not, in any manner, prejudice the accused person. In the last limb of arguments it was also contended that Chemical Examiner has not been examined and prosecution has failed to show as to who incorporated the Murasila (Exh.P.A.) into F.I.R. And who was assigned the duty to take the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. The objections of the learned counsel are immaterial. If the author of the report has not formally been examined as a prosecution witness, section 510, Cr.P.C. Makes his report or opinion, per se, admissible without calling him to formally prove it. Court, in suitable cases, has the power to examine the expert either of its own accord or on the request of any party if it feels so to meet the ends of justice. It was held in Shah Muhammad and 3 others v. The. State 1980 PCr.LJ 257 that:-- "Section 510, Cr.P.C. Is a provision of convenience and it does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to support the opinion of the Ballistic Expert by reasons for such opinion. In cases where the opinion does not contain reasons, prosecution is required to produce the Expert for cross-examination."
12. It was also observed in Muhammad Liaque v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 671:-- "It would appear from the above provision (section 510, Cr.P.C.) that it is not necessary to call the Expert concerned to prove the report containing his opinion. Nor is it the requirement of above section that the Expert report be tendered or produced in evidence formally through any other witness. All what is enjoined by the above provision of law is that the report produced by the Expert may be used as evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code."
' Section 510, Cr.P.C. Is an exception to the general rule laid down that all evidence shall be taken in the presence of the accused. It makes a departure from the elementary rule of law that unless evidence is given on oath, and is tested by cross-examination it is not legally admissible against the party affected, thus, section makes the report of any of the Experts mentioned therein, admissible in evidence without calling him as a witness, the reason for the special dispensation which is thus, granted to such experts, presumably, is the avoidance of expense, delay and inconvenience which would be entailed if the expert had to travel round the country giving evidence at every trial of a criminal case.
' In the proviso to the section 510, Cr.P.C. The word used is "may" and not "shall" "the Court may, if it considers necessary ... Summon and examine the person by whom such report has been made".
So, it is clear that the Court has a discretion to receive the report in evidence without proof or to summon and examine the expert before using the report as evidence, if the report is incomplete, it is open to the Court to summon and examine the expert.
' The requirement under the section are i,e, (i) original report shall be put in evidence (ii) report must be formally tendered, (iii) report must be 'under the hand' of the expert, (v) if the report alone is to be considered sufficient, it should contain all the information which the officer himself would have been able to furnish if he had been examined as a witness; when the report is meager and cryptic and incomplete, it is open to the Court to summon and examine the expert; it would be better if in such reports reasons for the opinion expressed, are given.
13. Again the mere fact that prosecution has omitted to bring on record as to who had been entrusted with the duty to take sample to Lahore for opinion and report or who incorporated the Murasila into report, by itself, is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is merely an irregularity and cannot be treated as an illegality vitiating the trial or making the prosecution case doubtful. It has also been contended halfheartedly that one of the marginal witnesses to recovery memo. (Exh.P.0 ) namely Aziz Muhammad F.C. Has been abandoned by the prosecution without valid reasons which tends to suggest that the recovery was not affected in the manner alleged by the prosecution. This submission too is without substance. Law insists on quality and not on quantity of evidence.
14. The case-law cited on behalf of the appellant is distinguishable and has no bearing on the facts of the present case. It is of no avail to the appellant.
15. In the wake of above discussibn, we find that prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
16. The appellant was admitted to bail by this Court vide order, dated 29-8-2001. The appellant did not appear in Court and non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against him. The appellant has been arrested and produced in Court in handcuffs. The appellant is directed to be sent to jail to serve out the unexpired portion of his sentence.