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 narcotics---Appreciation of evidence--- Safe custody of the narcotics and its transmission to Chemical Examiner not proved---Accused was charged for having 1100 grams charas---Neither complainant nor recovery witness had deposed before the Trial Court that charas was handed over to Head Moharir of the police station---Head Moharir had also been examined by the prosecution before Trial Court---Head Moharir had not deposed that from whom he received the parcel of charas for depositing the same in Malkhana---Thus, prosecution utterly failed to prove safe custody and safe transmission of the charas from the spot of recovery till its receipt by Chemical Examiner---Said chain of custody was fundamental as the report of Government Analyst was the main evidence for the purpose of conviction---Prosecution must establish that chain of custody was unbroken, safe and secure but in the present case safe custody and safe transmission could not be established--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Zahir Shah alias Shat v. The State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhawa 2019 SCMR 2004 rel.(b)    Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Principle---Not necessary that there be multiple infirmities in the prosecution case or several circumstances creating doubt---Single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable, in the prosecution case would be sufficient to entitle the accused to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.Tajamal Hussain v. The State 2022 SCMR 1567 rel.Date of hearing: 7th March, 2024.JUDGMENTNAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Maqsood Ahmed appellant was tried by learned I-Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Court (CNS), Karachi Central in Special Case No. 565 of 2022 for offence under Section 9(c) of CNS Act, 1997.After regular trial, vide judgment dated 07.09.2022, appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of CNS Act, 1997 and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- and in default in payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo S.I for 03 months. Appellant was…