| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 50 2020 SLD 50 2020 PLJ 8 |
Peshawar High Court
Crl. A. No. 84-A of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 31.07.2019.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ms. Zohra Durrani
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Arshad Ahmad Khan, AAG
Crl. A. No. 84-A of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 31.07.2019.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ms. Zohra Durrani
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Arshad Ahmad Khan, AAG
MST. FARZANA
VS
STATE
Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997
Section: 9(c)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 382B
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)-- ----S. 9(c)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Recovered contraband--According to the FIR, the time of occurrence has been shown as 16:00 hours while the complainant appearing in the witness-box has deposed that he had received information about the transportation of contraband at 01:15 hours whereas the distance between the spot and Police Station has been shown 700/800 meters by PW, which could be covered hardly within ten (10) minutes, moreso, when the complainant himself stated that he was having his own car and went to the spot in it, thus, ibid aspect of the case has caused dents in the prosecution case--Furthermore, though the complainant received information about the narcotics four hours prior to the raid with the knowledge that the culprits would be four (04) including a female, but even then neither he could obtain permission from the Court nor associated a lady constable with him--No doubt, the appellant, as per the prosecution case, was found sitting in the car at the relevant time but there is no material on the case file to show that she had a conscious knowledge that the case contraband was being smuggled in the car--Mere sitting in a vehicle wherefrom some contraband is recovered would not be enough to hold the seater liable for conviction unless it is shown by the prosecution through reliable evidence that she had conscious knowledge qua the activity of smuggling which is not the case in hand-- Thorough and careful examination of the case record would show that the prosecution has not established and proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt--The trial Court has not appreciated the case evidence in its true perspective qua the appellant and has fallen in legal error to record her conviction, for which its is not sustainable. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.- This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.01.2019 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Judge Special Court Takht Bhai delivered in case FIR No. 140 dated 04.04.2014 under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station…
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