| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2572 2024 SLD 2572 2024 YLR 556 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 538 and Confirmation Case No. 14 of2021, decided on 27th September, 2022.Date of hearing: 14thSeptember, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
Muhammad Farooq for Appellants. Habib Ahmed, Special Prosecutor ANF for
Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 538 and Confirmation Case No. 14 of2021, decided on 27th September, 2022.Date of hearing: 14thSeptember, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
Muhammad Farooq for Appellants. Habib Ahmed, Special Prosecutor ANF for
Respondent.
NAEEM AKHTAR alias ALI HAIDER and another---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Section: 9(c)
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Charas weighing 3233 kilograms was allegedly recovered from accused---In the present case, evidence of the prosecution witnesses was found as reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring---Recovery of huge quantity of charas was affected from the possession of accused persons and the same was kept in safe custody and within shortest period it was sent for chemical examination---Prosecution also proved the safe custody and its safe transmission by producing the witnesses in whose custody the property was in the Malkhana and through whom it was sent for chemical examination---All the chains from the recovery of the narcotics till sending the same for chemical examination had been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt---Contention raised by the defence that complainant and the Investigating Officer of the case was the same person, therefore his evidence could not be relied upon and its benefit must be given to the accused had no force as there was no prohibition in the law for the Police Officer to investigate the case lodged by him---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt---However, the Trial Court had passed the sentence against the accused and awarded him death sentence on the basis of his previous conviction in a narcotics case which was in violation of the legal procedure provided under the law---Death penalty awarded by the Trial Court to the accused was a harsh one and not in accordance with law, hence, same was reduced to imprisonment for life, in circumstances---Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence. Syed Mushtaque v. The State PLD 2003 Kar. 216; Akber v. The State 2017 YLR 277; State v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi PLD 2017 SC 671; State v. Sohail Khan 2019 SCMR 1288; State v. Fakhar Zaman 2019 SCMR 1122 and State v. Muhammad Ramzan and others 2019 SCMR 1295 ref. Zafar v. The State 2008 SCMR 1254 rel. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of…
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