| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 2640 2012 SLD 2640 2012 YLR 2686 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2011, decided on 9th August, 2012. DATE of hearing: 31st July, 2012
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL AND GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, JJ
Sohail Ahmed Rajput for Appellant. Atique Ahmed Khan, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State
Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2011, decided on 9th August, 2012. DATE of hearing: 31st July, 2012
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL AND GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, JJ
Sohail Ahmed Rajput for Appellant. Atique Ahmed Khan, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State
MUHAMMAD AKBAR
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Minor dis-crepancies/contradictions in evidence---Prosecution witnesses (police officials) remaining consistent with each other with regard to material details---Tampering of samples not alleged---Effect---Accused, who was a passenger in a bus was found in possession of 6 kilograms of charas---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Contentions of accused were that prosecution evidence was full of contradictions and discrepancies; that samples were sent to Chemical Expert after a delay of five days, and that only 30 grams of recovered substance was sent for chemical analysis, therefore, at the most sentence against him could be recorded with regard to 30 grams of charas---Validity---Discrepancies and contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses (police officials) were minor and could be ignored since all witnesses remained consistent with each other on the point of date, time, place of arrest , recovery of charas from accused and its dispatch to Chemical Examiner---Credibility of prosecution witnesses (police officials) could not be questioned without any serious allegation of their malice against the accused---Accused was arrested on the spot along with charas and Chemical Examiner's report found the recovered substance to be charas---Delay in sending incriminating articles to Chemical Expert for analysis could not be treated fatal in the absence of objections regarding the same having been tampered with or manipulated---Accused in the present case never contended during or before trial that samples had either been replaced or were tampered with---Sending whole of the recovered narcotic substance to Chemical Examiner was not the requirement of law, and only a small quantity was sufficient to prove that entire recovered material was contraband substance---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ---S. 9---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Evidence---Police officials as witnesses---Scope---Police…
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