Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c),25

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001

Section: R.4,5

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103,340(2),342,382B

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 9(c) & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Police officials as sole recovery witnesses---Competence---Principles---Prosecution case was that 269 slabs of charas, each slab weighing 1-kilogram, total 269-kilograms were recovered from the secret cavities of a vehicle, driven by accused, out of which, 15-kilograms were sealed for samples while remaining charas was sealed separately---Report in that regard had been received in positive---Accused, in circumstances, was liable to be held responsible for having only 15-kilograms of charas in his possession which offence attracted provision of S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Accused had been convicted by the trial court for life imprisonment accordingly---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Ameer Zeeb v. State PLD 2012 SC 380; 2013 SCMR 302; 2007 PCr.LJ 426; 2011 SCMR 984; 2012 YLR 1316; 2012 PCr.LJ 886; 2012 YLR 1372; 2007 SCMR 206; 2008 SCMR 742 and PLD 2010 SC 1052 ref. Ammer Zeeb v. The State PLD 2012 SC 380; Mst. Nasreen Bibi v. State 2014 SCMR 1603; Abdul Sattar v. State 2016 SCMR 909 and Para Din v. State 2016 SCMR 806 rel. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997--- ----S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 4 & 5---Seizure of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Chemical analysis---Delay in sending sample to Chemical Analyser---Effect---Rules 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 were not mandatory and controlled the substantive provisions of the Act and to apply in such a manner that its operation would not frustrate the purpose of the Act---Failure to follow the Rules would not render the search, seizure and arrest under the Act, absolute nullity and non-est---Objection having been raised to the effect that the contraband was unsealed or tampered with or manipulated delay would not affect the result of analysis. PLD 2009 SC 39 rel.…

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