Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c),29,29(d)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103,173,342,382B

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 40

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that 80 Kilograms of charas was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle---Samples were separated for analysis and sealed into parcels---Record showed that accused-appellant was driving the vehicle at the time of his arrest---Co-accused-appellant was sitting with him in the vehicle---Police party recovered total 80-kilogram charas from secret cavities of the vehicle on their disclosure and pointation---Samples were prepared and on the next day, were sent to the narcotics testing laboratory for analysis---Government Analyst examined the material and found that the same were"hashish pukhta"---Knowledge and awareness of narcotic would be attributed to the accused-appellant as he was driver of the vehicle---Co-accused-appellant could not be absolved from his responsibility as he was sitting with the driver and he could not explain as to why he was sitting with the driver in a private vehicle---Both the appellants were, therefore, responsible for transportation of huge quantity of charas kept in the secret cavities of the vehicle, which undeniably remained in possession and control of both the appellants---Inspite of lengthy cross-examination of the witnesses, nothing beneficial could be elicited of any help to the case of the accused-appellants---Person on driving seat of the vehicle would be held responsible for transportation of narcotic---Positive chemical report produced in evidence proved that substance recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle of the accused was charas---Prosecution had discharged its initial onus while proving that substance recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle was charas whereas appellants had failed to discharge its burden in terms of S. 29(d) of the Act---No proof of enmity with the complainant and the prosecution witnesses had been brought on record, thus, in absence thereof, the competence of prosecution witnesses being officials was rightly believed---Witnesses were not at all questioned about any previous ill-will or animus with the accused-appellants whereby they…

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