| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2699 2019 SLD 2699 2019 PLJ 1493 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. Appeal No. 75452-J & 59484-J of 2017 decision & hearing Dated: 23.05.2019
ANWAAR UL HAQ PANNUN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Amjad Iqbal Qureshi Advocate and Ms. Shafkat Parveen Mughal, Advocate, learned defence counsel
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Irfan Ahmad Malik, Special Prosecutor for ANF
Crl. Appeal No. 75452-J & 59484-J of 2017 decision & hearing Dated: 23.05.2019
ANWAAR UL HAQ PANNUN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Amjad Iqbal Qureshi Advocate and Ms. Shafkat Parveen Mughal, Advocate, learned defence counsel
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Irfan Ahmad Malik, Special Prosecutor for ANF
SAJJAD AHMAD & OTHERS
VS
STATE
Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997
Section: 9(c),15,29,29(c),48
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 173,265C,340(2),342
Law: Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001
Section: R.6
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)-- ----Ss. 9(c) & 15--Convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment--Challenge to--Recovery of opium weighing 3.6-kgs from beneath seat of Appellant/Accused opium weighing 1.2-Kgs from beneath driving seat of co-accused and heroin weighing 2.5-kgs from lap of other co-accused--All accused / appellants were reported to come along with heavy consignment of narcotic from Peshawar to Faisalabad via motorway by a motor car--On secret information a raiding party was constituted and reached near Toll Plaza motorway Faisalabad--Three persons alighted from car were apprehended--Case of prosecution is not free of doubt and for earning acquittal, accused is not obliged to establish number of circumstances creating doubt but even a single circumstance, creating a reasonable doubt in prudent mind is sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to accused. Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001-- ----R. 6--Convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment--Challenge to--Recovery of opium and heroin--NIH reports--case of prosecution is hit by rule 6 of CNS (Govt. Analysts) Rules, 2001 as it is well settled by now that any report failing to describe in it, details of full protocols, test applied will be in conclusive, unreliable, suspicious and untrustworthy, will not meet evidentiary presumption attached to a report of government Analyst under Section 36(2) of Act--Moreover, these reports did not contain protocols and tests applied for--Reports of NIHDC are suffering from legal and incurable flaws and cannot be considered as conclusive proof of recovered material to be contraband and would not be termed are considered as admissible in evidence--Non-conclusive and non-speaking laboratory report, which was not in accordance with law and rules cannot be relied upon for sustaining conviction. Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)-- ----Ss. 29(c) and 15--Convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment--Challenge to--Recovery of opium and heroin--Under Section 29 of Act ibid, some departure has been introduced to this general principle yet prosecution cannot be absolved from its duty to…
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