' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---The appellants namely Mst. Bibi Aisha and Mst. Nazira Bibi, both residents of Gulshan Ravi Ganda Nulla, Lahore alongwith Muhammad Aslam (non-appellant) were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, Lakki Marwat for an offence under section 9 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. At the conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 28-1-2004, the appellants were convicted under section 9 of the Act (ibid) and sentenced to suffer seven years R.I. Each and fine of Rs.10,000 each or in default whereof, to undergo further six months S.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appellants have challenged their conviction and sentences through instant Jail Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2004 which is before us for consideration.
2. The prosecution story succinctly stated, is that on 2-1-2003 P.W. Wali Khan, Additional S.H.O., Police Station, Pezu heading a policy party was present on Bannu-D.I. Khan road near Lucky Cement Factory for routine checking when at about 1100 hours a Flying Coach bearing No.7385-KTA coming from Bannu side was stopped. On suspicion, two lady passengers were deboarded. They disclosed their names as Mst. Bibi Aisha and Mst. Nazira Bibi. They also stated that one Muhammad Aslam was also accompanying them. He was also deboarded. On personal search, three kilograms Chars from Mst. Bibi Aisha and four kilograms Chars from Mst. Nazira Bibi was recovered. Personal search of Muhammad Aslam also led to recovery of 100 grams opium from the side pocket of his shirt. Samples were separated from the recovered contraband for chemical analysis. All the three accused were arrested and case under section 9, Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 was registered against them. After completion of usual investigation, complete challan was submitted against the accused in Court.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused produced four witnesses in all namely Nasir Khan, F.C. (P.W.1), Wazir Zada, (P.W.2), Khan Wali Khan, S.H.O. (P.W.3) and Mumtaz Khan, S.-I. (P.W.4). Accused in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Repudiated the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been falsely charged. They neither appeared as their own witnesses on Oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor produced any evidence in defence.
4. In suppoit of the appeal, Mr. Salimullah Khan Ranazai, Advocate submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution is full of contradictions and omissions and that the appellants were convicted on a very highly discrepant and interested evidence of the prosecution; that the recovery was made in a clandestine manner and the same has also not been witnessed by any independent witness; that the Investigating Officer after detailed consultations with the driver and other passengers in the Coach, took the appellants to Police Station and implicated them in the present case. Additionally, he urged that recovery having been allegedly effected on 2-1-2003, samples were sent to Chemical Analyst after considerable delay without any explanation which has made the recovery highly doubtful.
5. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State supported the impugned judgment and maintained that the above mentioned pieces of evidence of the prosecution have rightly been relied upon as these have led to the hypothesis of guilt of the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.
6. We have heard at length the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the light of material available on record.
7. . In this case, two witnesses Nasir Khan, F.C. (P.W.1) and Khan Wali Khan, S.H.O. (P.W.3) have been produced by the prosecution to prove the factum of apprehension of the appellants on 2-1-2003 while travelling in Flying Coach No.7385- KTA and recovery of contraband Charas weighing three and four kilograms respectively from their personal search. Both the witnesses have demonstrated complete unanimity on all the important aspects of the case. The appellants have remained unable to point out any discrepancy or infirmity in their statements so as to create a dent in the prosecution case. We have noticed that no enmity or grudge has been alleged against these witnesses to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. It has been argued with justification that such quantity of illicit narcotics cannot be thrust upon the appellants in absence of tangible, cogent and concrete enmity and that has not been proved by the defence.
8. Regarding first submission of learned counsel for the appellants that evidence on record is discrepant and full of infirmities on accognt of which the appellants' are entitled for acquittal, the learned counsel has not been able to point out any such misreading or non-reading of evidence, resulting into miscarriage of justice. Both the witnesses have demonstrated complete unanimity on all material aspects of the case and they successfully qualified the test which though was fairly lengthy, but they stood firm, as a consequence whereof, defence has failed to extract anything favourable to the appellants.
9. The submission that compliance of the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Was not made in the case as no two respectable persons of the locality were associated, has no force for the reason that provision of section 103, Cr.P.C. Has been excluded under the provisions of section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 and the provisions of section 20 of the .Act are directory in nature, therefore, its noncomplianco cannot be considered as a strong grciund for holding that the trial of the appellant is bad in the eye of law as held in Buner Gul petitioner v. The State respondent 1999 PCr.LJ 728 Peshawar.
10. It needs no reiteration that the main aim and object of enacting of section 103, Cr.P.C. Is to ensure that the search and recovery was conducted honestly and fairly and to exclude any possibility of concoction and transgression. It never meant to disbelieve the statements of official witnesses in any other circumstance. Testimony of a police official cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police official. Official witnesses are as good as private witnesses. In this context, there is a wealth of case-law on the point that police officials are competent witnesses to attest a recovery memo. There is consistent opinion of the superior Courts that police officials are competent witnesses of recovery memo. And thus contention of the learned counsel would not cut much ice to absolve the appellant from the circumstance of recovery of Charas from their possession. Fida Jan v. The State 2001 SCM R 36.
11. Adverting to the question regarding delay in dispatch, no doubt it is true that the recovery of contraband Charas is alleged to have been made on 2-1-2003 and parcel was received in the office of Chemical Examiner on 29-1-2003 after a delay of 26/27 days but it is equally true that delay in sending recovered material to the concerned quarter for opinion cannot be treated fatal in absence of objection regarding the same having been tampered with or manipulated. No such objection regarding tampering or manipulation was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Thus the delay becomes immaterial. The objection is not sustainable.
12. As far as the sentence is concerned, certain quantity of Charas was recovered from possession of the appellants which comparatively is less dangerous. Keeping in view the circumstances, the appellants being poor ladies, previously non-convict and stated to be carriers, we while maintaining the impugned judgment, reduce their sentences from seven years to three years.
However, sentence of fine is maintained. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is also extended to them.
13. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification.