Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c),14,15

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 340(2),342

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss.9(c) & 15---Recovery of narcotics---Benefit of doubt---Secondary evidence---Principle---Accused persons were arrested for carrying 5 kilograms of heroin---Trial Court convicted accused persons and sentenced them to imprisonment for 7 years along with fine---To substantiate proceedings of raid, recovery of narcotics and arrest of accused persons, complainant/ investigating officer did not appear before Trial Court and such fact was fatal for prosecution and sufficient to demolish entire structure of prosecution case---Secondary evidence could be led through another witness who must remain associated with actual witness and was acquainted with his handwriting and signatures---Neither circumstances requiring to lead secondary evidence were brought on record nor witness who was produced as secondary evidence remained associated with complainant/ investigating officer and was not acquainted with his handwriting and signatures--- Prosecution witness appearing as secondary evidence never worked with complainant/investigating officer and witness had not seen any document prepared by him---Prosecution failed to substantiate proceedings allegedly carried out by complainant/ investigating officer---Prosecution had alleged that complainant/investigating officer was responsible for concocting false FIRs against innocent persons who was removed from service---Such allegation of prosecution also discredited complaint against accused persons---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court to accused persons and they were acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. State v. Muhammad Rafeeque 1984 PCr.LJ 961 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2012 SCMR 440 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution was to establish its case and prove charge against accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubts---Even a slightest doubt entitles an accused due benefit of acquittal not as a matter of grace or concession but as of right. Tafiq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 and Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD…

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