Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 1742 2008 SLD 1742 2008 SCMR 991
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.432 of 2005, decision dated: 13-02-2008.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 27-4-2005 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2003)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN AND ZIA PERWEZ, JJ
Dr. Babar Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Mian Asif Mumtaz, D.P.G. for the State

AMANAT ALI and 2 others

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)----S. 9(c)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted for safe administration of justice, inter alia, to consider the contentions of the accused that Sub-Inspector of Police, the complainant, had investigated the case himself, thus he being interested in the prosecution should not have acted as Investigating Officer; that out of 2-1/2 kilograms of heroin kept in eight packets, only one gram was sent for chemical analysis and that all the three accused persons were said to be sitting inside the car, from which the said heroin was recovered from its secret cavities and on search of the said car an open transfer letter was also secured, as such, none of them were the owners of the car, therefore, they had no exclusive knowledge about the presence of heroin therein. Zahoor Ahmad Awan and another v. The State 1997 SCMR 543 and Taj Wali and 6 others v. The State PLD 2005 Kar. 128 ref. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)-Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that accused was driving the vehicle, the ownership of which was also claimed by him on the basis of open transfer letter in his possession and fact that vehicle was being run by the accused as taxi, was neither contradicted nor any evidence was brought on record to suggest that co-accused of the accused being his associate in the crime had the knowledge of presence of heroin being kept in the secret cavities of the vehicle---Validity---Careful examination of evidence suggested that in the light of circumstances leading to the occurrence, the prosecution had not been able to prove the charge against the said co-accused beyond reasonable doubt---No evidence was available to the effect that co-accused being companions of the accused in the crime had the conscious knowledge of presence of heroin in the taxi car to treat them in joint possession of recovered heroin---Supreme Court, in view of doubt arising in the prosecution case to the extent of participation of co-accused persons in the crime, while giving them benefit of doubt, acquitted them from the charge and directed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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