Law:

Section:

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Prosecution case was that 102 packets of charas were recovered from the vehicle, wherein, accused/respondents were seated---Prosecution produced witnesses including complainant, recovery witness and Investigating Officer in order to prove its case---Complainant reiterated the contents of Murasila on the basis of which FIR was registered---Recovery witness stated that he witnessed the preparation of parcels and other formalities on the spot besides identification of articles produced in the Trial Court---Said witness acknowledged his signatures on recovery memos---Investigating Officer stated about the investigation conducted by him---Said witnesses were cross-examined at length but remained firm on material points---Main accused/driver was rightly convicted and sentenced as he was custodian of the vehicle and responsible for article concealed/lying in the vehicle, however, case of present respondents was on different footings---Said accused/respondents raised plea at initial stage in respect of their taking lift in the said vehicle which could not be rebutted through reliable and confidence inspiring evidence---Prosecution witnesses did not utter even a single word showing that the said accused/respondents were equally responsible for contraband kept and concealed in the secret cavities of the vehicle---Circumstances established that accused/respondents were not involved in the offence---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Scope---Prosecution was duty bound to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt---Benefit of doubt, if any would be extended in favour of accused. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 417--- Appeal against acquittal--- Presumption--- Double presumption of innocence was attached with every acquittal---Such order, unless the same was arbitrary, capricious, fanciful and against the record could not be interfered. Haji Paio Khan v. Sher Biaz and others 2009 SCMR 803 rel. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---…

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