Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2567 2018 SLD 2567 2018 PLD 823
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Cr. A. No. 90-L of 2017 and Cr. Misc. Appl. No. 307-L of 2018, decision Dated: 15-09-2018, hearing Date : 13-09-2018 On appeal from the judgment Dated 24-3-2014 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Cr. A. No. 2374 of 2010
GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Kh. Muhammad Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasnim Amin, Advocate-on-Record (absent).
Respondent(s) by: Ch. Muhammad Waheed Khan, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab

MUHAMMAD ADNAN

VS

THE STATE

Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c)

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Preamble---Possession and trafficking of narcotics---Reappraisal of evidence---Juvenile accused treated as an adult offender---Unreliable prosecution witnesses---Accused, who was 12 years of age at the time of the alleged offence, was driving a motorcycle rickshaw, from wherein a huge quantity of charas and heroin was recovered---Trial Court convicted the accused under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to life imprisonment---Admittedly, the accused was not even a teenager when the narcotic drugs were seized from the rickshaw---Questions were whether a child of such tender age could be the owner or deemed to be the owner of the huge quantity of narcotic drugs which had been seized; whether he could be the owner of the rickshaw; whether it could be accepted that he was driving the rickshaw; and whether he had the requisite understanding to know what he was doing---None of the said questions were investigated by the police---Trial Court was a Juvenile Court and as such was required to ensure that the interest of the child whose trial it was conducting was fully protected, however, it did not formulate the said questions as "points for determination" nor considered them---Trial Court treated the accused as an adult, without considering that he was a child of tender years, and presumed that he had full capacity and understanding---High Court perpetuated the error, and the Judges who heard the appeal also effectively treated the accused as an adult offender---Police arrested the accused at a picket, but he did not try to run away---Narcotics were recovered in the presence of two witnesses---One of the said witnesses denied his signature on the recovery memo, while the other disowned any knowledge of the recovery exhibit, therefore he was declared hostile---Prosecution did not seek to have their signatures sent for forensic determination---Police Inspector who had set up the picket and apprehended the accused was the complainant of the case---Complainant admitted in his cross-examination that he made no attempt to…
🔒
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