' TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J.--- Jan Gul son of Faqeera Shah and Khaki Shah son of Rehmat Shah appellants were tried under section 9(c) of C.N.S.A., 1997 by the learned Judge Special Court Anti- Narcotics, Attock and vide judgment dated 11-8-2000 both the appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs,1,00,000 each and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. For one year. This appeal under section 45 of C.N.S.A., 1997 has been preferred against the said judgment. The prosecution case is that on the night between 19/20th July, 1998 at about 11-00 p.m. Iftikhar Ahmad, S.-I./Investigating Officer P.W.5, Sher Muhammad, S.-I. P.W.4 alongwith several other police officials carried out a Nakabandi on G.T. Road near Police Station Attock Khurd having received secret information that the narcotics in huge quantity is to be smuggled into Punjab from N.-W.F.P. While checking was continuing a motorcar bearing Registration No,LHG-2120 was stopped by the police posse at 12-30 a.m. The appellant Jan Gul was driving the said car while appellant Khaki Shah was sitting on the front seat. Both the appellants were made to alight from the vehicle and upon the search of the motor car, 17 litres of Charas wrapped in polythene paper were recovered from the place where the spare wheel is kept in the dicky. On weighing the Charas so recovered came to 10 Kgs. Two packets of opium were also recovered from the speakers fixed above the rear seat of the car. 20 grams of Charas was separated from all the litres. 20 grams of opium was also separated. Both the samples were sent for chemical analysis. According to the report in this regard, the presence of the respective narcotic substance was proved.
2. P.W.5/Investigating Officer conducted the usual investigation. He secured the Charas Exh.P.1, opium Exh.P.2, spare tyre Exh.P.3 and speakers Exh.P.4/1-2. The recovery memo. Exh.P.B. Was attested by Sher Muhammad, S.-I. P.W.4 and Tahir Anees, A.S.-I. The motor- car was taken into custody as Exh.P.5 while its Registration Book Exh.P.6 was also secured. Upon further personal search of Jan Gul appellant, besides an amount of Rs,500 in cash, Qaumi Razakar Card bearing photograph of the said appellant in uniform of A.S.-I. Was recovered as Exh.P.8 while three coloured photograph of different police officials in uniforms were taken into possession which are Exh.P.9/1-3. Similarly on personal search of appellant Khaki Shah besides a wrist-watch and a photo copy of his N.I.C., Qaumi Razakar Card in uniform of a Constable Exh.P.12 was recovered.
3. Formal charge against the accused/appellants was framed on 9-12-1999 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 Ghulam Shabbir, A.S.-I. Who received the parcels of respective narcotic substances from Iftikhar Ahmad, Investigating Officer. He dispatched the sample to the Office of Chemical Examiner through P.W.2 on 25-7-1998.
' Tanvir Asghar Shah, L.H.C. Testified having delivered both the samples to the Office of Chemical Examiner on the same day.
' P.W.3 Abdi Mehmood Khan, A.S.-I: recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A. On the basis of the complaint sent by Iftikhar Ahmed, S.-I./ Investigating Officer P.W.S. ' P.W.4 Sher Muhammad, S.-I. Is the recovery witness of all the recoveries hereinbefore mentioned to have been effected. He corroborated the prosecution case in detail in respect of the manner of search and recovery made from the appellants.
' P.W.5 lftikhar Ahmed was the Investigating Officer of the case. He had conducted the Nakabandi alongwith other police officials upon receiving secret information regarding smuggling of narcotic substances. He deposed regarding the manner of arrest and search of the appellants. He sent his complaint to P.W.3 who recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A.
5. After recording of the prosecution evidence both the appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied that any narcotics were recovered from their car in their presence. They took the plea that on 19-7-1998 they had come to Ziarat of Hazrat Jee Baba Attock Khurd and were present there. According to their version the police had apprehended them without any cogent reason. They contended that they were innocent. They neither owned the motor car nor had any connection with any narcotics substance alleged to have recovered from the said motor car.
6. The learned trial Court after appraising the evidence, believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellants as hereinbefore mentioned.
7. Mr. Nadeem Mumtaz Khan, Advocate for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the evidence produced by the prosecution suffered from legal and factual lacunae. According to him, the prosecution has not been able to connect the appellants with the offence under section 9-C with which they were charged. The learned counsel submitted that Choudhary Iftikhar Ahmad, S.-I. Is the complainant, Investigating Officer and also the witness of recovery. It is submitted that such concentration of powers and functions in one person has caused prejudice to the appellants and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
' It is further submitted that the challan was not submitted in the Court within the stipulated period of fourteen days and therefore, all subsequent proceedings shall be null and void.
' The learned counsel for the appellants further stated that search was made in violation of provision of section 103, Cr.P.C., and no impartial public witness was associated in the proceedings.
According to him the entire proceedings regarding search have thus been made against the law.
' The learned counsel for the appellants was also of the view that there was serious discrepancy in the time of the search which was given as 12-30 a.m. In the F.I.R. And in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Where the same has been recorded as 12-00 midnight. It has also been urged that the sufficient quantity of the narcotics substance was not taken by the prosecution while sending the same for chemical analysis. He also contends that the plea of the prosecution that a small amount was taken from each litre of Charas does not stand to reason. The quantity/weight of the narcotics substance has also been disputed.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State has controverted the contentions made by the appellant. It is contended that the prosecution had produced cogent and consistent evidence to prove the case against the appellants. No mala fides have been alleged or established against the police in implicating the appellants in the case. Regarding the recovery, it is contended that in view of section 25 of C.N.S.A., 1997, the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Are not attracted.
Even otherwise the police officials are as good witnesses as any public witness unless some specific mala fides are established against them. It is further contended that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants by the mere fact that Iftikhar Ahmed, S.-I. Was the complainant, Investigating Officer or the recovery witness.
9. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The prosecution has substantiated its case through the production of oral and documentary evidence. P.Ws.4 and 5 were members of the A police party which amongst other police officials had arranged Nakabandi at G.T. Road near Police Station Attock Khurd at the relevant time. The appellants were apprehended at about 12-30 a.m. Jan Gul appellant was driving the Motor Car No, LHG-2120 while the appellant Khaki Shah was sitting beside him on the front seat. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 has been reappraised and we do not find any material contradiction either in the prosecution version as given in the F.I.R. Or the deposition made by these witnesses. A huge quantity of Charas weighing 10 Kgs. And opium weighing 2 Kgs. Were recovered from the dicky of the said motor car and the speakers of the Tape-Recorder respectively. The motor car, spare wheel and the speakers were recovered in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.S. Other important incriminating evidence includes the recovery of Qaumi Razakar Cards of the appellants which bear their respective photographs in the uniform of A.S.-I. (Jan Gul) and uniform of Constable (Khaki Shah).
11. The prosecution witnesses have been cross-examined but nothing has been elicited which could detract from their statements. The appellants have felt content with recording their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. And have not appeared as their own witnesses on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The defence witness Dilawar D.W.1 produced by appellants has not made any confidence-inspiring statement D which could displace and diminish the effect of the prosecution evidence brought on the record.
12. We are not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that as the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted beyond the prescribed period of fourteen days the entire subsequent proceedings should be set at naught. As per the record, the Investigating Officer had prepared the challan within seven days of the registration of the case and submitted the same to the A.S.P./S.D.P.O. The same was forwarded to the prosecution branch on 3-8-1998. The challan was however, submitted in the Court on 29-9-1998. Thus we do not discover any delay in the preparation of the challan by the police. Such delay in actual submission of the challan to the Court has not been shown to have caused any prejudice to the appellants. At any rate the appellants did not raise any objection at the appropriate stage.
13. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the recoveries have been effected in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is also devoid of force. Admittedly, the recovery of the narcotics substance has been made in view of the provisions of section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The said provision of Special Statute specifically excludes the application of section 103, Cr.P.C. In any event it has now been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that police officials are competent witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely for the reasons that they are police employees. Reliance is placed on the rule laid down in the case of Muhammad Azam v. The State PLD 1996 SC 67. We find from the record that the evidence of recovery in respect of the quantity of the narcotics substance recovered and that sent for chemical analysis is consistently established by the different prosecution witnesses.
The report of the Chemical Analyst in respect of the substance transmitted to him by P.W.2 is positive. The learned counsel for the appellants has also not been able to show the prejudice if any which has been caused to the appellants by the mere fact that Iftikhar Ahmed, S.-I. Who had lodged the complaint was also the Investigating Officer of the case. At least nothing has been indicated from the record.
14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellants have failed to make out any case of interference in the impugned judgment. The appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.