| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2949 2015 SLD 2949 2015 PCRLJ 1580 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2008, decided on 16th December, 2014
MISS AALIA NEELUM AND MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, JJ
Iftikhar ul Haq Chaudhary, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2008, decided on 16th December, 2014
MISS AALIA NEELUM AND MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, JJ
Iftikhar ul Haq Chaudhary, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.
The STATE through Prosecutor-General, Punjab
VS
MUHAMMAD AZEEM alias SOHNI
Law:
Section:
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 9 & 48---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appeal against acquittal---Reappraisal of evidence---Submission of counsel for accused was that the only question involved in the appeal related to reappraisal of evidence---Burden of proof lay heavily on the shoulders of the prosecution---Prosecution had to cover a distance between "may be true"; and "must be true"---While discharging its burden of proof, the prosecution, had to establish each single fact through cogent and convincing evidence---Findings recorded by the Trial Court could not have been so recorded on the evidence on record---Even assuming that another view could be taken against accused in respect of the charge, that could not be a ground to set aside an order of acquittal in order to succeed---State must show, that the findings recorded by the Trial Court could effectively be dislodged, and that such findings were unwarranted---Trial Court had rightly taken note of material contradictions, appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, with regard to vital parts of the prosecution case---Recovery of alleged contraband (charas) weighing 1250 grams, did not stand proved by the prosecution---Case property, which was dispatched to the office of the Chemical Examiner, was received in the office after the delay of one month and one day---Prosecution failed to give any explanation as to where the alleged samples were kept during the period of one month and one day---Grave doubt existed if the recovered narcotic was sealed and kept in a safe custody---Such circumstances created doubt about the veracity and authenticity of the report of Chemical Examiner---Prosecution evidence was not worthy of credence---Trial Court had correctly held that the charge had not been brought home to the accused in view of unsatisfactory nature of evidence and contradictions in prosecution evidence,. ORDER By means of instant appeal filed in terms of section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with section 417 of Cr.P.C., the State through Prosecutor General Punjab, has challenged the…
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