Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: XXV,9(c)

(a)    Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S.9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Prosecution case was that 25 packets of charas weighing 30 kilos and 900 grams were recovered from the rickshaw driven by the accused--- Complainant in his examination-in-chief deposed that the memo was prepared by Munshi on his dictation who was called from police station---Mashir in whose presence the memo was papered and who also signed the same as a witness in his cross-examination stated that complainant prepared the memo inside police mobile cabin on which he signed as a witness---Complainant during his cross-examination stated that no private witness was available at the place of incident therefore he made Police Officials as witnesses---Mashir/witness had deposed against such fact and stated during cross-examination that complainant did not try to associate any private person and that he called private persons but people did not cooperate---Prosecution case was that entire recovered contraband was sealed at the spot and no samples were separated from any of the slabs---Such fact was also admitted by the witnesses in their evidence but the letter issued for sending the contraband for chemical examination addressed to the incharge Chemical Examiner showed that at serial No.4 sealed sample was also mentioned as sent for chemical examination which created very serious doubt in the prosecution case---Such contradictions clearly indicated that the complainant and mashir were not the true eye-witnesses of the incident and no such incident of arrest of accused and recovery of charas from the possession of accused had occurred as alleged by the prosecution---Both the witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects of the case---No implicit reliance could be placed in view of said contradictions on the evidence of prosecution witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Ziaul Rehman v. The State 2001 SCMR 1405; Nazeer Ahmed v. The State PLD 2009 Kar. 1914; Ali Hassan v. The State PLD 2001 Kar. 369; Ahsan Marfani v. The State 2022…