Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 1230 2020 SLD 1230 2020 PCRLJ 1025
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1469 of 2011, decided on 10th October, 2019, Date of hearing: 10th October, 2019.
AALIA NEELUM, JUSTICE SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR, JUSTICE
Rana Imtiaz Hussain for Appellant. Waqas Anwar, DPG for the State.

NAZIR AHMED

VS

THE STATE

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c)

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possession and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody of contraband substance by police not established---Safe transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner not established---Effect---Prosecution case was that 91 packets of charas each weighing one kilogram, total weighing 91 kilograms were recovered from the secret cavities installed in the floor of truck of accused---Out of recovered charas, 20 grams from each packet was separated for chemical analysis---Record showed that complainant in his examination-in-chief claimed that he knew the accused previously, but surprisingly the final report was submitted against the accused in S. 512, Cr.P.C. without describing any effort of arrest of the accused---Such attitude on part of the police was quite strange and even was against the implied duties--- In the present case, the identification of the accused was based on hearsay evidence and the same did not come under the definition of "res-gestae" which required direct evidence---Such identification of the accused was not reliable---Investigating Officer deposed that he handed over the case property and samples parcels to the Moharrar at the police station---Moharrar in his examination-in-chief acknowledged only receiving of 91 sample parcels from the Investigating Officer---Deposition of Moharrar was silent with regard to receiving of case property or its safe custody---Meaning thereby, the case property had not been kept in Malkhana in safe custody, as such the safe custody of case property could not be proved---Prosecution had tendered in evidence copy of report of Chemical Examiner instead of original one---No explanation on the record was available as to why the original was not produced---Author of the said report had also not been produced before the Trial Court---Truck had not been produced before the Trial Court---Circumstances established that prosecution case was highly doubtful and based on un-natural and unbelievable story---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court,…
🔒
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