Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: XXV,9(1)(6)(c)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161,173

(a)    Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as amended by Controlof Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022)]--- ----S.9(1), Sr. No.(6)(c)--Possession and transportation of narcotic substances--Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that 1100grams heroin was recovered from the possession of accused---Complainant stated that accused was apprehended with the help of accompanying lady constable and on her search heroin weighing 1100-grams was recovered---Lady Constable had reiterated almost the same story---Complaint indicated that one Head Constable took the same to the police station to set the criminal law into motion, and FIR was lodged---In addition to the said key role, per prosecution case, the said Head Constable approached Investigating Officer, after that the said Investigating Officer started the process of investigation, who stated in his examination-in-chief that he recorded the statement of Lady Constable and another Constable---No reason whatsoever came on record that why the statement under S.161,Cr.P.C., of Head Constable, was not recorded---Neither the statement under S.161,Cr.P.C., of Head Constable was recorded nor he was introduced as witness in the list of witnesses of report under S.173,Cr.P.C.---First Information Report and statement of the Duty Officer was not enough to prove the vital evidence of Head Constable---Head Constable was the witness relating to the fact that he had approached the Duty Officer for registration of FIR and thereafter communicated the FIR to the Investigating Officer and only then process of investigation had started---It was a matter of record that heroin was recovered from white coloured shopping bag, which had not been tendered in evidence with exhibit number creating doubt in the prosecution story, which was otherwise neither plausible nor believable---Appeal filed by accused against her conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Minhaj Khan v. The State 2019 SCMR 326 rel. (b)    Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If a single doubt is created even then the defence is entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter…