Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: XXV,9(c)

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 103

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence--Discrepancy in the prosecution case---Scope---Prosecution case was that 1480grams chars was recovered from the possession of accused---Recovery witness deposed that his duty time was from 07.00 am to 07.00 pm and he was on patrolling duty and during patrolling at 01.00 pm, he was called back at Police Station---Accordingly, in the cross-examination recovery witness deposed that, he did not remember the cell number from which he received the call for visiting Police Station---Moreover, said witness stated that as per spy information, one person was selling "Charas" but as per the prosecution case no purchaser was found---Said witness deposed that Investigating Officer firstly prepared memo. of arrest and thereafter, sealed the property, whereas, in cross-examination he admitted that in the Mushir Nama, Investigating Officer firstly sealed the property and then wrote Mushir Nama---Complainant testified that the time 04.00 pm mentioned in the body of the memo. of arrest and recovery was overwriting---Said discrepancy casted significant doubt on the credibility of the evidence and undermined the prosecution's assertions---Circumstances established that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of recovered substance not proved---Prosecution case was that 1480grams charas was recovered from the possession of accused---Prosecution witness/Head Constable testified that he received case property from Investigating Officer in evening time at about 8:30 PM on 05-03-2021; that Investigating Officer again took property from him on 06-03-2021 for depositing some to Chemical Examiner and he again returned to him in evening on the same day and Investigating Officer took the property on 08-03-2021 in morning time--Prosecution had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for three days delay during which the sample…