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

Section: 6, 9

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) Ss. 6 & 9---Possession and transportation of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that 40-kilogram charas was recovered from the truck driven by the accused---Record showed that the prosecution successfully established its case through the consistent and corroborative testimony of reliable witnesses who remained unshaken during extensive cross-examination---Complainant, provided a detailed and coherent account of the entire incident from the initial spotting of the suspicious vehicle to the eventual recovery of contraband substance---Complainant s testimony found complete corroboration in the statement of Excise Constable, who was present as mashir during the entire operation and witnessed all material aspects of the recovery---Person who was on driving seat of the vehicle shall be held responsible for transportation of the narcotic, having knowledge of the same, as no condition or qualification has been made in S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, that the possession should be an exclusive one, and could be joint one with two or more persons---Further, when a person is driving the vehicle, he is in charge of the same and it would be under his control and possession, hence, whatever articles lying in it would be under his control and possession---In the present case, the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt through unimpeachable evidence---Prosecution established through positive evidence that a driving license was recovered from the appellant's person, and he was found driving the vehicle at the time of interception---Mere assertion that it was not HTV license, without supporting evidence, could not be accepted---Appellant's claim of physical disability preventing him from driving was completely unsupported by any medical evidence---Despite claiming that his right leg had fractures in five different places, the appellant failed to produce any medical certificate, hospital records, or doctor's testimony to substantiate that assertion---Appellant's objection to the absence of public witnesses was…