Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 3042 2018 SLD 3042 2018 YLR 32
Sindh High Court
Cr. Jail Appeal No. D-109 of 2015, decision Dated: 13-04-2017. hearing Dated: 06-04-2017
SYED HASSAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE RASHEED AHMED SOOMRO, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Arif Malik
Respondent(s) by: Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor General

MST. HASEENA BALOCH

VS

THE STATE

Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that 4-kilogram heroin was recovered from the possession of accused---Defense had contended that alleged incident had taken place in broad day time and place of incident was situated in heart of city but no private witness was associated to act as mashir of arrest and recovery, which was violation of provision of S. 103 Cr.P.C.---Validity---Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had expressly excluded application of S. 103 Cr.P.C. to the cases registered under the Act---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances. Zulfiqar Ahmed v. The State 2006 SCMR 800 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Police officials as witnesses---Competency---Police officials were as good witnesses as any other private witness unless it was proved that they had personal grudge against the accused---Evidence of police officials could be relied upon if their testimony remained unshattered during cross-examination---Testimony of police officials could not be discarded simply on the ground that it had come from the police officials. Naseer Ahmed v. The State 2004 SCMR 1361; Aala Muhammad and another v. The State 2008 SCMR 649 and Muhammad Khan v. The State 2008 SCMR 1616 rel. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Allegation against accused-appellant a lady, was that 4-plastic bags of heroin powder were recovered from her purse, which was weighed and found to be 4-kilogram---Nothing was available on record to substantiate that complainant and prosecution witnesses had enmity with the accused or had any malice towards her and due to that malice, she was falsely implicated in the case---Accused contended that only 400-grams heroine powder out of total seized heroine powder had been separated and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and nothing was available on record to show that remaining material was heroine powder or something else---Validity---Sending the entire recovered…
🔒
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