Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

Section: 9(1), 3(c)

(a)    Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---

----Ss. 9(1), S.No. 3(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of contraband not established--Accused was charged for having in his possession 2300-grams charas---To prove the recovery of the contraband weighing 2300 grams of charas, the prosecution produced Seizing Officer on whose murasila FIR was registered--Seizing Officer reiterated the contents of his murasila---Female Police Officer testified that on 14.01.2023 at 12:45 am, after receiving phone call she arrived atcrime scene and found the appellant sitting beside the road, having a black polythene bag in her hand, which was checked and found two packets of charas, weighed by Seizing Officer with a digital weighing machine, whereof parcel was prepared---Head Constable was the recovery witness, who testified in line with the deposition of Seizing Officer and Female Police Officer--Head Constable produced the recovery memo and a parcel with two packets of 'charas'---Neither the complainant nor the recovery witness had utter a single word regarding arrival of the Investigating Officer on the crime scene nor had stated to have handed over the recovered 'charas' and a parcel to Investigating Officer in order to establish the safe custody from the place of recovery to the malkhana---Although, Investigating Officer had stated to have had received the parcel from Seizing Officer, but in absence of testimony of Seizing Officer and Female Police Officer, corroborating his testimony would not be safe to rely upon his testimony alone in respect of safe custody of the narcotic, because harsher the punishment, stronger the evidence for establishing the indictment, which seemed to be lacking in the instant case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

(b)   Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---