Case Details

Citation(s)
SLG 1921 (2019) 123 SLD 1921 (2019) 123 MLD 1445
Islamabad High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 190 and 196 of 2016, decision Dated: 06-05-2019. Hearing Dated: 17-04-2019.
AAMIR FAROOQ, JUSTICE MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Syed Hamid Ali Bukhari (in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 2016).
Respondent(s) by: Ch. Ehtisham-ul-Haq, Special Prosecutor, ANF. (in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 2016).

SYED KARAM HUSSAIN SHAH AND OTHERS

VS

THE STATE AND OTHERS

Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c),15,32

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161,342

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 9(c)& 15---Possession of narcotic substance, abetment or association in narcotic offences---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that on spy information, police stopped a vehicle near a petrol station---On search of vehicle, three packets of charas, 1kg each (total 3kg), wrapped in khaki solution tape and momi lifafa was recovered from the bag of accused sitting on front seat of the vehicle, whereupon three samples parcels from the said three packets were prepared---Similarly, the person who was driving the vehicle was co-accused, who disclosed that charas garda had been concealed in front doors of the vehicle and on his disclosure, the front doors were opened and two packets of charas garda each weighing 1- kg (total 2kg) wrapped in khaki solution tape and momi lifafa were got recovered, from which sample of 10 grams was taken from each packet---Investigating Officer, during the course of cross-examination, had acknowledged that marasla did not contain element of colour of vehicle, however he stated that accused driver did not try to accelerate the vehicle when he was stopped by the constables---Said witness made personal search of the accused and he stated that both accused-appellants had disclosed about the charas---Investigating Officer had acknowledged that site plan did not contain the presence of witnesses and on the day of working the petrol station was operational---Said witness had acknowledged that employees of petrol station were called to witness the recovery proceedings, but they refused to become witnesses of narcotics case---Other witness of recovery had narrated the entire story of prosecution, however, he acknowledged during the course of cross-examination that at the time of preparation of parcel, the overwritten date was mentioned and the seal of article was not intact and found broken---On the request of defence counsel, a parcel was de-sealed and on de-sealing three packets wrapped in khaki solution tape were found and it was observed by the Court that three packets had a small cut at the corner from where sample substances were taken…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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