Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 3271 2022 SLD 3271 2022 PCRLJ 1788
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 209-M with Interim Relief, decision Dated: Ist March 2022.
MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR AND MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, JJ
Saleem Raza Jakhar for Appellant (in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 631 of 2019). Amrat Kumar for Appellant (in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 641 of 2019). Khadim Hussain, A.P.G. for the State (in both Appeals)

MEHBOOB ALI

VS

STATE through Additional AdvocatEGeneral and 3 others

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)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Effect---Prosecution case was that 2010 grams charas was recovered from the vehicle of accused and 2110 grams charas was recovered from the vehicle of co-accused---Complainant merely mentioned that the police party had patrolled the specific area, whereas Police Constable stated that they had patrolled through a different area---Complainant stated that 5 to 6 vehicles had been checked prior to the arrest of the accused persons, Police Constable said that they did not check any other vehicle except the vehicle of accused---Complainant stated that there was an interval of about 10 to 15 minutes between the arrival of the first vehicle and the second vehicle of the accused persons, whereas Police Constable confirmed that both vehicles arrived simultaneously at the place of incident---Complainant deposed that it was he who had conducted the search of accused, whereas Police Constable contrarily stated that it was he (constable) who had done so---Complainant deposed that two pieces of charas wrapped in yellow colour plastic tape were found tied around the abdomen of co-accused with a cloth strip, whereas Police Constable stated that one packet of charas in the shape of similarly wrapped piece was so recovered---Complainant stated that private witnesses were not available at the time of arrest and recovery, whereas Police Constable stated that the Complainant asked one or two passers-by to act as witnesses, but they refused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Possession of narcotics--- Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Withholding material evidence---Scope---Prosecution case was that 2010 grams charas was recovered from the vehicle of accused and 2110 grams charas was recovered from the vehicle of…
🔒
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