' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI, J.--- Appellant Farid Ahmad alias Bobi was tried (in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,122, dated 17-4-1995 under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 at Police Station Tibbi City, Lahore) and vide the impugned judgment, dated 11-3- 1999 he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of rupees one million. In default whereof he was to further undergo R.I. For six years and three months.
2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that during investigation of the case registered vide F.I.R.
No,196 of 1995 the appellant was under arrest he and his co-accused son of Gul made a disclosure that they were keeping opium and Charas in their houses. Both the accused were taken to their house bearing No,93-Gulshane Park in front of Mansoora, Muitan Road, Lahore where Farid alias Bobi appellant led to the recovery of nylon sack (Tora) of blue colour placed under a bed in south eastern corner of a room and when opened it contained 10 Kgs. Of Charas, son of Gul co-accused also led to the recovery of a huge quantity of Charas and opium. 50 grams of Charas and 20 grams of opium was separated and made into a sealed parcel for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner for analysis. Nasir Ahmad S.-I. Sent a complaint to Police Station Hanjarwal for registration of a criminal case vide complaint Exh.P.B. Whereafter formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was registered by Ansar Hussain, S.-I. On 17-4-1995. After due investigation the challan was submitted in Court.
3. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses. P.W.1 is Mahmoodul Hassan, who having received two sealed parcels containing Charas and opium delivered it to the office of Chemical Examiner. P.W.2 Nasir Ahmad, S.-I. Before whom appellant and his co-accused made disclosure, which ultimately, led to the recovery of Charas and opium. He is complainant, investigated the case and submitted final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. P.W.3, is Muhammad Altaf, A.S.-I. He too is a witness of recovery. P.W.4 is Anwar Hussain S.-I. Who registered formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 after receipt of complaint Exh.P.B. P.W.5 is Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.-I. Who too is a witness of recovery. P.W.6 is Muhammad Sarwar A.S.-I. He got three parcels containing Charas and opium in police Malkhana under safe custody. The accused appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution story and attributed false implication to mere suspicion. In defence, he appeared himself and alleged that Muhammad Akram Cheema, Inspector owed him Rs,6,000 as he had purchased various household articles from his shop when he demanded the afore-referred amount he refused and instead has got two cases registered against him (vide F.I.R. No,196 of 1995 and F.I.R. No,122 of 1995 the instant case). He, however, conceded in cross-examination that he did not lodge any criminal complaint against Muhammad Akram Cheema, Inspector in the higher police officials. His wife appeared as D.W.1, and Waris Iqbal and D.W.2 both repeated the defence plea of enmity with Muhammad Akram Cheema, Inspector and that he had not returned Rs,6,000 to the appellant and that the cases were registered when the appellant demanded the amount in question. However, it was constituted that no complaint was placed to any higher police officials either before the registration of the case or during investigation of the instant case.
4. Learned defence counsel submitted that the prosecution case is mainly based on the statement of police officials which cannot be relied upon as there is a background of enmity with Muhammad Akram Cheema, Inspector who was Incharge of the Narcotics Cell at the relevant time. He added that since appellant was already under arrest in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,196 dated 16-4- 1995 under sections 3 and 4 of the PEHO read with section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, at Police Station Tibbi City, Lahore. The police had sufficient time to associate members of the public for recovery of the narcotics, which are case property in the instant case. Learned counsel for the State defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the police officials in absence of any enmity with them are as such worthy and reliance as any public witness, that there is no reason why the appellant should be falsely implicated, that the defence plea taken by the appellant does not inspire confidence and, therefore, has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court.
5. Heard.
6. The evidence of recovery of narcotics was furnished by P.W.2, Nasir Ahmad, P.W.3 Muhammad Altaf, A.S.-I. And P.W.5, Muhammad Nawaz. These witnesses were subjected to cross-examination but they remained consistent on all material particulars i,e, the timing of the occurrence, the place and manner of recovery of the narcotics in question. These witnesses of recovery were not attributed any enmity neither during cross-examination nor in, the statement of the accused under section 342,Cr.P.C. In the afore-referred circumstances their testimony inspires confidence and is worthy of credit. There is no reason why they should falsely implicate the appellant in such a serious case. The appellant attributed enmity in a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. To Muhammad Akram Cheema, Inspector who at that time was Incharge of the Narcotics Cell but while appearing as his own witness in defence and his wife appearing as D.W.1, both of them conceded that they had not given any application against the said Muhammad Akram Cheema, Inspector either prior to the registration of the instant case or during investigation to any higher police officials. That being so this plea appears to be an afterthought and cannot rope the credibility of the prosecution case.
7. For what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond doubt to sustain conviction. The appeal having no merit is accordingly dismissed. However, we note that the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is rather excessive, the same is reduced to six months. With the afore-referred modification the appeal stands disposed of in terms noted above.