Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: XXV,9(c)

(a)    Criminal trial-------Police witnesses---Scope---Police Officials, in absence of any malice or grudge against the accused on their part, were as good witnesses of recovery as any respectable of the locality.(b)    Criminal trial-------Recovery memo---Object and scope---One of the objects behind preparing the recovery memo. at the spot with its due attestation by the witnesses was to ensure the fairness of the process of recovery so as to exclude the possibility of fabrication, misappropriation or damage to the seized articles either to favour an accused or for his false implication---Recovery memo. must contain all relevant particulars of the things seized or taken into possession to establish its identity beyond any doubt---Requirement behind attestation of a recovery memo. by the marginal witnesses at the spot was part of an attempt to ensure that the recovery had transparently been effected as fulfillment of such requirements was necessary to exclude the possibility of false implication or any manipulation prompted by human weaknesses and to prevent the abuse of process of law and misuse of authority---Attestation of the recovery memo. by two witnesses acting as musheer also ensured that a single person at his whims might not abuse the process of law and misuse his authority---Preparation of such recovery memo. was also necessary to prove the case by the prosecution at trial against the accused.Zafar Khan and others v. The State 2022 SCMR 864 rel.(c)    Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S.9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence--Recovery memo---Doubtful---Prosecution case was that 2250-grams charas was recovered from the possession of the accused---Record showed that recovery memo. of charas neither contained the number nor the date of the FIR nor the name of police station---Complainant had admitted that in recovery memo. there was no specific mention of place where the contraband was allegedly recovered from the accused---Furthermore, the recovery witness in his cross-examination had also deposed that he did not remember as to what case FIR…