Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 6,9(c),25

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001

Section: 4

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 382B,342,103,340

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R.4---Appreciation of evidence---Eye-witnesses had made consistent statements regarding receipt of secret information, pointing of accused by the informer, place from where the accused was apprehended by the police with contraband "Charas" and the date and time of his arrest---Discrepancies pointed out in prosecution evidence were minor and of trivial nature which did not diminish its worth---Plea taken by accused regarding his false implication in the case had no ring of truth and appeared to be farfetched---Complainant and other police officials had no reason to plant a huge quantity of contraband on the person of the accused---Contention regarding non-compliance of section 103, Cr.P.C. was misconceived as the same had been specifically excluded by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, from its application in cases of narcotics---Even otherwise, in such like cases public was hesitant to participate in recovery proceedings in order to avoid serious repercussions and ramifications---Dispatch of samples to the office of Chemical Examiner for analysis after the period of 72 hours had not rendered the seizure invalid, because Rule 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 was directory in nature and not mandatory and the same, therefore, could not control the substantive provisions of the Control of Narcotic substances Act, 1997, nor frustrate the purpose of the Act for which the same had been framed---Further, failure to follow the Rules would not, in any manner, render the search, seizure or arrest under the Act a nullity and make the entire prosecution case doubtful---Uncontroverted testimony of two witnesses had established that the parcels were received by them properly sealed, were kept in safe custody, were not tampered with and deposited in the office of the Chemical Examiner in due course with seals intact---Prosecution had proved its case against accused beyond any doubt---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances. Zulfiqar Ahmad v. The State…

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