Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c),20,25

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)----- ----Ss. 9(c), 20 & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103--­Appreciation of evidence---Recovery proceedings---Explanation offered by one of the accused persons for his false implication in offence, was not plausible as he had not been able to explain the purpose of his traveling in the vehicle with a stranger/co-accused---Prosecution witnesses- had no enmity or grudge against accused to involve him in the case---Huge quantity of Charas and Opium had been recovered from `Gathri' under reference and prosecution witnesses were consistent regarding the time and place of occurrence and recovery of articles and the manner in which it had been effected---Such a large quantity of contraband material could not be believed to have planted by police just to implicate accused for nothing---Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and provisions of S.20 of said Act were directory in nature---Non-compliance of provisions of 5.103, Cr.P.C. could not be considered as a strong ground for holding that trial of accused was bad in the eye of law---Accused had contended that on material particulars, prosecution evidence being inconsistent, contradictory and doubtful, same, even in absence of defence evidence, could not result into conviction of accused---Contention was repelled because accused had not been able to point out any, discrepancy or flaw in prosecution case so as to render of Trial Court as not sustainable---Personal search of co­ accused resulted into recovery of huge quantity of Charas from her possession and said recovery had been proved satisfactorily through evidence furnished by complainant and other prosecution witnesses--­Prosecution witnesses had been cross-examined at length, but their evidence had not been shattered---Discrepancies pointed out by co-accused were of no importance---Prosecution having been successful in proving its case against accused, no exception could be taken to of Trial Court convicting and sentencing accused. Nek Muhammad and another v. State PLD 1995 SC 516; State through Advocate-General Sindh v. Qazi…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492