' MIAN MUHAMMAD JAHANGIER, J.-By this judgment Criminal Appeal No,640 of 2001 filed by Amanullah son of Atta Ullah, Khan, caste Pathan, resident of Apu Khel, Mohallah Essa Khel, District Mianwali, is being disposed of which has emerged from the judgment passed by Mian Khadim Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, dated 25-4-2001, whereby Amanullah appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo six years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,15,000, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's R.I. He was given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The facts of the prosecution case have been disclosed in complaint Exh.P.B. Drafted by Tahir Abbas, S.-I./S.H.O., Police Station Essa Khel, at about 8-00 a.m. On 2-5-1996 in the area of Degree College, Essa Khel, on basis of which formal F.I.R. Bearing No,39 dated 2-5-1996, under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order of 1997, was drafted at Police Station Essa Khel.
' The allegation against the appellant was that at the time, date and place mentioned above, when he was apprehended by a police party, Charas 3 kilograms in weight was recovered from his possession.
' Charas 150 grams in weight was separated and made into a sealed parcel for chemical analysis.
Charas 3 kilograms in weight was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. Rough sketch of the place of recovery Exh.P.D. Was prepared. After completion of necessary investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court.
3. The gist of the charge framed against the appellant was as under:-- "That on 2-5-1996, at about 7-30 a.m. In the area of near Degree College, Isa Khel, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Isa Khel, you were found in possession of 3 Kgs. Of Charas which was recovered by the police from your possession and thus you committed an offence punishable under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which is within the cognizance of this Court."
4. When the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge, Mehr Khan, M.H.C. (P.W.1), Abdul Aziz, Constable (P.W.2), Shah Nawaz, S.-I. (P.W.3) (recovery witness) and Muhammad Hayat, Constable (P.W.4) (another recovery witness) came forward to prove the prosecution case.
' Report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.E. Was tendered in evidence.
5. When the statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded, he denied the allegation as levelled by the prosecution and professed about his innocence. He submitted his reply to a question that as to why this case was registered against him and why the P.Ws. Deposed against him as under:-- "In fact, the police have planted this recovery against me.
' Nothing was recovered from my possession nor I was apprehended on the said date, time and place as alleged by the prosecution. My wife as previously made different applications against the then Police Officer Khalid Baloach and due to this grudge; the police has planted and fabricated this false case against me. My relative also filed a writ petition against S.H.O. Tahir Abbas. The narcotic weight is not according to their own case and version."
' He tendered in evidence a copy of writ petition against Tahir Abbas, S.H.O., which was filed by his relative and also photo copy of an application filed against the S.H.O. And he closed his defence evidence.
6. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Judge observed that the recovery of 3 kilograms Charas has been proved to have been recovered from the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on misreading of evidence and actually the case of the appellant was not properly taken into consideration and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court suffers from infirmities which cannot sustain in the eyes of law and in fact the prosecution had failed to prove its case, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court dated 25-4-2001 is liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced.
9. We have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. It appears that Shah Nawaz, S.-I. (P.W.3) and Muhammad Hayat, Constable (P.W.4) deposed about the apprehending of the appellant and recovery of 3 kilograms Charas and taking of the same into possession by Tahir Abbas, S.H.O. Vide memo. Exh.P.C. Attested by them. They faced the test of cross-examination put by the learned defence counsel, but no material discrepancy could come on the record.
' It transpired from the statement of Shah Nawaz, S.-I. (P.W.3) that Tahir Abbas, S.H.O. Had gone to Bosinia due to which he could not be examined as a prosecution witness and his signatures were identified by Shah Nawaz, S.-I Since Shah Nawaz, S.-I had worked alongwith Tahir Abbas, S.H.O. And he was member of raiding party, therefore, he could depose that he identifies the writing and signatures of Tahir Abbas, S.H.O. Therefore, if Tahir Abbas, S.H.O. Could not be examined, it had no adverse effect on the prosecution case.
' Report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.E. Being positive in nature provided blood in the prosecution case.
11. On the other hand, the defence advanced by the appellant appeared to be afterthought and the documents brought by him on the record could not provide any strength to the defence version.
' In other words, the prosecution case had been established and that there was no show of misreading and non-reading of the evidence on the part of the learned trial Court. Being so, judgment passed by he learned trial Court calls for no-interference.
12. In view of the above discussion, we maintain the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 25-4-2001 and this appeal is hereby dismissed.