Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 2233 2011 SLD 2233 2011 PLD 62
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 240 of 2008 and 8 of 2009, decided on 27th April, 2010, DATE of hearing: 24th February and 10th March, 2010.
SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, JJ
A.Q. Halepoto for Appellant (in Cr.A.No. 240 of 2008) Muhammad Shaft Khan for Appellant (in Cr.A. No. 8 of 2009).

ABDUL ZAHIR alias ZAHIR SHAH

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 9(c), 20, 21 & 22---Recovery of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence---Quantum---Minor discrepancies---Effect---False implication---Non-obtaining of search warrant---On arrest of one accused small quantity of heroin was recovered from him and on his pointation 7 kilograms of heroin was recovered from co-accused---Trial Court convicted both the accused for possessing 7 kilograms of heroin and were sentenced to seven years of imprisonment---Plea raised by accused was that raid was conducted without obtaining search warrant---Validity---Evidence of complainant was corroborated by evidence of two recovery witnesses, whose evidence also got support from F.I.R., arrest of accused, recovery of narcotics and report of Chemical Analyzer, which was positive---Some discrepancies and contradictions appeared in evidence of prosecution witnesses but the same did not appear to be of such nature to vitiate trial or create doubt in prosecution case, as the evidence adduced by prosecution was consistent on material particulars and inspired confidence---Defence of accused that they were falsely implicated in the case was not substantiated by relevant evidence as huge quantity of heroin could not be planted upon accused in absence of any enmity or dispute---Provisions of Ss. 20, 21 and 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were directory in nature, therefore, non-compliance thereof would not be a ground for holding trial to be bad in law---Evidence adduced during trial was properly appreciated by Trial Court and the same did not warrant any interference by High Court---On the basis of material brought on record of Trial Court, both the accused were rightly found guilty and were accordingly convicted---Sentence awarded to the accused from whose possession 7 kilograms of heroin was recovered was maintained by High Court but the accused from whose possession only small quantity was recovered, his sentence was reduced under S.9 (b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to three years' imprisonment---Appeal was disposed of accordingly. Tila Muhammad v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1379; Sana Gul v.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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