Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1255 2021 SLD 1255 2021 MLD 928
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2020, heard on 3rd December, 2020, Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2020.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR, JUSTICE, CH. ABDUL AZIZ, JUSTICE
Prince Rehan Iftikhar for Appellant. Malik Riaz Ahmed Saghla, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State.

RASHEED AHMED ALIAS PAPPU BAYDEED

VS

THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c)

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

Section: 129(g)

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) S.9(c)QanuneShahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129(g)Possession of 1400 grams charasAppreciation of evidenceWithholding material evidenceEffectProsecution case was that 1400 grams of charas was recovered from the possession of the accusedRecord showed that the drafted complaint was sent to the police station through a constable for the registration of formal FIRThough, said constable was an important witness to prove that the complaint was transmitted from the place of recovery to the police station, however, neither said constable was produced before the Trial Court nor his statement was recorded during investigationSuch omission gave rise to an inference that had said constable appeared before the Trial Court he would not have deposed in support of the prosecution caseCircumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubtAppeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Minhaj Khan v. The State 2019 SCMR 326 rel. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) S.9(c)Possession of 1400 grams of charasAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtSafe custody of contraband substance by police and transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner not establishedEffectProsecution case was that 1400 grams of charas was recovered from the possession of the accusedOfficial witness/constable while appearing in the dock stated in unequivocal terms that no entry in the Station Diary/Rozenamcha was made about the receipt of case property for placing in safe custodyProsecution in such state of affairs, failed to prove the safe custody as well as the safe transmission of the alleged narcotic substance to the Forensic Science LaboratoryFailure of the prosecution to prove safe transmission was always regarded fatal for its caseAppeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ikramullah and others v. The State 2015 SCMR 1002 rel. JUDGMENT CH. ABDUL AZIZ, J. Rasheed Ahmed alias Pappu (appellant) involved in case FIR No.582/2017 dated 29.08.2017 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as CNSA,…
🔒
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