Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(1)

Law: Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974

Section: 42(10)

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 265-C((1)(d)

Control of Narcotic Substances, 1997 (XXV of 1997)-- ----S. 9(1)--Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 (VIII of 1974), Art. 42(10)--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), S. 265-C((1)(d)--Recovered 3kg & 227 grams heroin--Convicted--Appeal--Dismissed--No chemical examination conducted--Mandatory requirement of chemical examination--Failed to send illegal contraband to laboratory--No opportunity of cross-examination provided to appellant--No information about dismissal of appeal was given to appellant in custody--Condonation of delay--Mis-reading & non-reading of evidence--Charge against appellant beyond reasonable doubt--At threshold, question of limitation requires determination--Impugned judgment of High Court was rendered on 30.05.2025, whereas present appeal was filed on 05.09.2025--The explanation offered by convict-appellant is that judgment of learned High Court was never communicated to him--Neither he was informed by his counsel, nor was any notice issued by Court apprising him of fate of his appeal-- Admittedly, no notice of announcement of judgment was served upon convict-appellant--Record reflected that he remained in continuous custody since his arrest--It is by now a well-settled principle that in criminal cases arising out of conviction, Courts adopt a liberal approach in considering applications for condonation of delay--The underlying rationale is that procedural technicalities should not impede substantive justice, especially where liberty of a person is at stake and delay is satisfactorily explainedIn view of explanation furnished by convict-appellant and surrounding circumstances, particularly his continuous incarceration and non-communication of impugned judgment, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown--Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is allowed--It is trite law that in order to sustain a conviction under Section 9(c) of CNSA, prosecution must strictly prove two essential elements--First, factum of recovery of alleged contraband from conscious possession of accused; and second, that substance so recovered is in fact a narcotic substance within meaning of CNSA--Prosecution witness…