Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c),25,36

Law: Police Rules, 1934

Section: 25,2(3)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 9(c) ,  25---Police Rules, 1934, R. 25.2(3)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Recovery of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery witnesses---Evidence of police officials---Principle---Administration of justice---Charas weighing 14 kilograms was recovered from custody of accused---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life---Validity---Private persons were present at the time of recovery so also persons sitting at hotel, who refused to act as Mashir---Complainant/investigating officer failed to mention names of those person who refused to act as Mashir---High Court declined to accept explanation given by investigating officer that independent persons were available but they were not willing to give evidence as it was no excuse for excluding such persons without legal justification---Justice was not to be done only in Courts---Other persons entrusted with powers were also responsible to do justice at their level---Responsible officer of Anti-Narcotic Force, invested with powers of investigation was also obliged in law to do justice and conduct fair trial and independent investigation---Prosecution failed to prove that Charas was in safe custody for the period and positive report of Chemical Examiner could not prove case of prosecution---Reasonable doubts existed in the case of prosecution, it was not necessary that there should many circumstances creating doubts---If there was a single circumstance which had created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused, then accused was entitled to the benefit as not a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge as prosecution failed to prove its case---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Tarique Parvez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Taj Wali and 6 others v. The State PLD 2005 Kar. 128; Munawar Ali Jatoi v. The State 2012 MLD 1763; Roshan v. The State 2018 PCr.LJ Note 26; Ghulam Qadir v. The State PLD 2006 SC 61; Zafar v. The State 2008 SCMR 1254 and Muhammad Sarfraz…

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