Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161,340(2),342,382B

Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)-- ----S. 9(c)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Allegation of--Recovery of Heroin from appellant's possession--Facts and circumstances--Prosecution case and charge against appellant could not be proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts--In such like situation an accused is always entitled for due benefit of acquittal not as a matter of grace or concession but as a right-Held: If a simple circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of an accused, then he will be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace of concession, but as of right. PLD 2002 SC 1048 & 1995 SCMR 1345, ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.- Tariq Mehmood (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), has challenged the judgment dated 25.09.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Judge CNS, Chakwal, whereby in case FIR No. 88, dated 22.04.2017, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at Police Station Saddar District Chakwal, he was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Act and sentenced to R.I. for 06 years, alongwith fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo S.I. for 06 months, with benefit to Section 382-B Cr.P.C. 2. The appellant was challaned to the Court, with the precise charge of recovery of 1110 grams of Heroin from his possession. He had denied the charge and claimed the trial, hence the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Adeel Safder ASI (PW-1), Muhammad Saleem Constable (PW-2), Muhammad Shafique H.C (PW-3), Muhammad Husnain Shah S.I. (PW-4) and Gulzar Hussain S.I. (PW-5) were summoned and recorded. 3. On completion of the prosecution evidence and closure of the case, the appellant was examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C, during which the question arising out of the prosecution evidence, were put to him but he had denied almost all such questions, while pleading his innocence and false involvement, in the case with mala-fide. He did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence or to make statement under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. Finally, the impugned Judgment…

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