Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 354 2021 SLD 354 2021 YLR 254
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 832-P of 2017, decided on 3rd December, 2019, Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2019.
MUSARRAT HILALI ANDAHMAD ALI, JUSTICE
Ms. Zohra Durrani for Appellant. Ms. Sofia Noreen, A.A.G. for the State.

ASAD

VS

THE STATE

Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c)

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

Section: 129(g)

Law: Police Rules, 1934

Section: 22,70

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Police Rules, 1934, R. 22.70---Transportation of narcotics---Withholding best evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictory evidence---Safe custody---Non-production of sample-bearer---Non-production of vehicle---Store room register, non-production of---Delay in sending samples to the Forensic Laboratory---Effect---Accused was alleged to have been apprehended during transportation of 28 kilograms of narcotics---Scribe of the FIR, who had affirmed receipt of murasila, had negated the stance of Investigating Officer regarding transmission of murasila along with case property---Complainant had stated that the contraband was handed over to the Moharrir for onward submission to the Forensic Laboratory, but Moharrir was not produced before the court---Constable who had taken the samples to the Forensic Laboratory was not examined during the trial---Second marginal witness to the recovery memo. was not examined for unknown reasons---Said important witnesses, being associated with the recovered contraband at the relevant time, were not produced before the Trial Court, therefore, adverse inference under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could be drawn that had the witnesses entered into the witness box, they would not have supported the prosecution case---No record or any assertion was available on record to suggest that the samples and the case property were ever kept in malkhana---Samples were received in Forensic Laboratory with a considerable delay of about three days from an unnamed official---Vehicle from which the alleged recovery was effected was not produced before the court---High Court, while extending benefit of doubt to the accused, allowed his appeal. 2018 SCMR 2039 and 2019 SCMR 903 ref. 2019 SCMR 608 and Ikramullah and others v. The State 2015 SCMR 1002 rel. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9---Possession of narcotics---Safe custody---Scope---Where safe custody of the recovered substance or safe transmission of samples of the recovered substance was not proved by the prosecution…
🔒
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