Law:

Section:

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---------S. 29---Presumption from possession of illicit articles---Intent and import-In order to raise such a presumption in law, the initial burden continues to be on the prosecution and it is only when the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proof that the onus would shift on the accused to rebut the said presumption which the law has raised. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)----- ----Art. 40---Tape recorded conversation---Tape recorded conversation is by now a well accepted form of "real evidence" which a party may produce to prove a fact in issue---Expression "real evidence" refers to all kinds of evidence, other than oral and documentary---Tape records, charts, photographs, finger prints and tracker dogs are some instances of the real evidence---Tape recorded conversation can be proved by the testimony of a person who was part of the conversation or who recorded the conversation or even transcripts were considered as proof of the conversation. Evidence Commentary and Materials by P.K. Waight and C.R. Williams (3rd Edn.); Butera v. D.P.P. (VIC), High Court of Australia (1987) 62 ALJR.7; R. v. Maqsud Ali R v. Ashiq Hussain 1965 2 All ER); S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72; R.M.Malkani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 157; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and others AIR 1975 SC 1788 and Asif Ali Zardari and another v. The State PLD 2001 SC 568 ref. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-­ ----S. 9(c)--Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution had successfully discharged its onus of proof and a presumption stood lawfully raised against the accused that he not only was indulging in trafficking of "Charas" but had also led to its recovery---Accused did not lead any evidence to rebut the said presumption raised against him by the prosecution evidence---Not even a word of mala fides or personal enmity was attributed by the accused to any of the prosecution witnesses--­Except his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. the accused did not opt to appear himself in his defence ---Accused having not disputed the contents of the recovered parcels since the…

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