Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2465 2014 SLD 2465 2014 PCRLJ 1649
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 494 and 55 of 2013, heard on 9th April, 2014
ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI AND SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ
Muhammad Masood Chishti for Appellants. Iftikhar ul Haq Chaudhry, Additional Prosecutor-General with Aftab Inspector for the State

GHULAB ALI alias GHULABO and another

VS

The STATE and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)------S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Police Inspector who appeared as witness, almost had reiterated the story narrated by him in the complaint---Said witness gave minute details of the narcotics which were recovered from possession of accused---Witness was fully corroborated by other Police Official who was also a member of raiding party---Contention of counsel for accused persons regarding violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., had no force, because S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of the said provision of Cr.P.C., from the cases of narcotics---Place of recovery was not a public place, but was a house; there was no possibility of any private person to witness the proceedings specially during the night when occurrence took place---Directions given in Rr.4 & 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, were directory in nature and not mandatory at all, coupled with the fact that the same did not override the main statute---Seventy-seven kilograms charas and 13-1/2 kilograms opium were recovered from possession/at the behest of accused persons; and accused persons never contended that such a huge quantity of narcotics was not recovered from them---Samples, though were sent to the laboratory after 15 days of recovery of narcotics, but the defence could not prove that the samples were tampered with during that period---Delay in submission of samples to the laboratory, was not fatal to the prosecution case to initiate the conviction---Positive reports of the laboratory supported the prosecution case---Accused who was apprehended at the spot, disclosed that his brother/co-accused was also involved---Said co-accused was specifically nominated in the F.I.R.---Witnesses remained consistent with regard to place of recovery, recovery of narcotics and even the names of accused persons---Accused were notorious drug dealers having previous record---All said circumstances, fully involved accused persons with the commission of…
🔒
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