| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2832 2004 SLD 2832 2004 PLD 334 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 2(S) of 2001, decided on 11th December, 2003.
JUSTICES NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, JAVED IQBAL, TANVIR AHMED KHAN DR. ALLAMA KHALID MAHMOOD AND DR. RASHID AHMED, JULLUNDHARI, MEMBERS
Mian Hissam-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for the State
Criminal Appeal No. 2(S) of 2001, decided on 11th December, 2003.
JUSTICES NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, JAVED IQBAL, TANVIR AHMED KHAN DR. ALLAMA KHALID MAHMOOD AND DR. RASHID AHMED, JULLUNDHARI, MEMBERS
Mian Hissam-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for the State
SARFRAZ GUL
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)-- ---Art. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203-F(2B)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the search in the case was not made under S.103, Cr.P.C. but was conducted under Art.22 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and also to determine whether the evidence of the four police officers who had supported the recovery, could be brushed aside on account of violation of S.103, Cr.P.C.---Search warrant issued in the case was also directed to be brought on the record. Iltaf Hussain v. The State 1996 SCMR 167 and Muhammad Mansha v. The State 1997 SCMR 617 ref. (b) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)-- ----Art. 4---Appraisal of evidence---Recovery of heroin and opium from the accused had been proved on record---Police recovery witnesses had duly corroborated each other --Hostile witness had also admitted categorically and unequivocally that the recovery memo. was got signed by him without any protest on his part---Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. were adhered to and minor lapses on the part of the police could be ignored which had caused no prejudice to the accused---Production of entire recovered narcotics in the Court was not a mandatory requirement---Certificate for destroying the recovered heroin and opium had been produced in the Court to substantiate the factum of recovery--Impugned based on forthright and credible evidence did not call for any interference---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Iltaf Hussain v. The State 1996 SCMR 167; Muhammad Mansha v. The State 1997 SCMR 617; Malik Aman v. State 1986 SCMR 17; Muhammad Shah v. State PLD 1984 SC 278; Muhammad v. State PLD 1981 SC 635; Abdul Hameed v. State 1986 SCMR 11; Abdul Hameed v. State PLD 1985 FSC 410; Sarfraz Durrani v. State PLD 1987 FSC 22; Zahid Khan v. Gulsher 1972 SCMR 597 and Munawar Khan v. State 1975 SCMR 119 ref. (c) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)--- ----Art. 4---Appreciation-of evidence---Police witnesses---Statement of an official witness in the absence of any serious enmity can be relied upon if it remains unshattered. Malik Aman v. State 1986 SCMR 17; Muhammad Shah…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492