Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 342 & 428---Evidence not produced during trial---Entertainment of evidence as additional evidence at the appellate stage---Admissibility---Evidence not produced during the trial, and never put to accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., could not be entertained as additional evidence at the appellate stage---Benefit of failure on the part of prosecution, if any, could not be extended to the prosecution---Any such statement could not be read as prosecution evidence at that stage. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 9, 13 & 15---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Possessing, trafficking of narcotics and manufacturing and owning intoxicant---Appeal against acquittal---Nothing was on record to show that place of recovery was owned by accused---Alleged ostensible owner of said place was also not produced as prosecution witness before the Trial Court---Statements of co-accused under S.164, Cr.P.C. were recorded in the absence of accused---Accused was never furnished an opportunity to cross-examine both co-accused---Statement of co-accused recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., could not be used as a piece of evidence against accused---Prosecution had not been able to furnish any nexus of accused with alleged place of recovery through any reliable ocular documentary account---No contraband was recovered from the physical possession of accused---Prosecution had no incriminating material against accused to connect him with the alleged offence---Case was of no evidence to the extent of accused---Presumption of innocence of accused was double in case of acquittal---Interference in appeal against acquittal could only be made, if it appeared that there had been gross misreading or non-reading of evidence amounting to miscarriage of justice---Law Officer had not been able to make out any good ground to interfere in the well-reasoned of the Trial Court granting acquittal in favour of accused---Impugned of the Trial Court, was neither based on non-reading or misreading of evidence, nor it suffered from any…

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