| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2275 2015 SLD 2275 2015 YLR 2284 |
Sindh High Court
Cr. Jail Appeal No. D-90 of 2010, decided on 29th October, 2013. DATE of hearing: 26th September, 2013
RIAZAT ALI SAHAR AND ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, JJ
Nisar Ahmed Bahanbhro for Appellants. Sardar Ali Shah, A.P.G. for the State
Cr. Jail Appeal No. D-90 of 2010, decided on 29th October, 2013. DATE of hearing: 26th September, 2013
RIAZAT ALI SAHAR AND ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, JJ
Nisar Ahmed Bahanbhro for Appellants. Sardar Ali Shah, A.P.G. for the State
ALAMGIR and another
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Truck, driven by one of accused persons, had been found to be loaded with contraband material---Possession of narcotic with accused persons could not be denied, as they had been found controlling vehicle, loaded with contraband material---Physical possession and/or constructive possession of the narcotic material, would make the possessor liable to be punished---Not necessary that possession should be physical---Contention that as driving licence was not recovered from the possession of accused, he could not be termed as driver of the truck, was without force, as accused was driving the truck---Driving was an art and it was not coupled with the licence, which was merely a legal authority to do that particular act---One having no driving licence could not be said to be not a driver---Contention that none of accused persons was the owner of the vehicle, was not tenable in circumstances---Not necessary that the driver should also be the owner of the vehicle, or that only owner of the vehicle was liable for holding the contraband material; and the driver could not be saddled with any liability---Driver, who was in actual possession of the vehicle and the material, was responsible; the owner could also be guilty in some cases, but not necessary in every case---Witnesses in the case who were Excise officials were also good witnesses like others---Said witnesses could be disbelieved, if they were shown to be inimical and/or interested---No animosity appeared to have been alleged against the witnesses, their testimony could not be discarded---Prosecution had proved its case against accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt and the Trial Court had appreciated the evidence in accordance with the settled principles of law---Judgment of the Trial Court being based upon sound reasons same required no interference, and was maintained, in circumstances. 2009 SCMR 579; PLD 1997 SC 408; 2009 PCr.LJ 480; 2009 YLR 1307; 2005 SBLR 230(sic); Mohammad Sadiq v. The State 2005 SCMR 1689 and Ikram Hussain v. The State 2005 SCMR 1487 ref. Afsar Khan v. 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