Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c),25

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 392,452,506(2)(b)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103,342,382B

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Heinousness of offence---Scope---Mere heinous nature of the offence was not sufficient to convict the accused because the accused continued with presumption of innocence until found otherwise at the end of the trial. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Burden of proof---Scope---Burden was always upon the prosecution to prove the case beyond shadow of doubt. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that 20-kilograms charas in shape of slabs was recovered from the vehicle of the accused persons---Record showed that the alleged incident took place on the relevant date and time at highway, which as busy road for traffic and traffic were available at the time of incident, shops were over there and it was evening time---Despite the said fact, complainant, who was also Investigating Officer of the case did not associate any independent personfrom the locality to witness the arrest and recovery proceedings---Provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C. though were not attracted to the cases of personal search of the accused, however, where alleged recovery was made on road side, which was meant for heavy traffic and shops were available there as in the present case, omission to secure independent mashirs, particularly, in case of a snap checking could not be brushed aside lightly by the court---Investigating Officer of the police or such other force, under S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997, was not authorised to exclude independent witnesses and could not do away with principle of producing the best available evidence---No specific bar existed under the law against the complainant who was also Investigating Officer of the case, but being the complainant, it could not be expected that as an Investigating Officer he would collect any material which go against the prosecution and give benefit to the accused---Evidence of such officer, therefore, was a weak piece of evidence and for sustaining a conviction it would require independent corroboration which lacked in the present case---False implication of the accused persons could not be…

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