| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2618 2010 SLD 2618 2010 SCMR 27 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No.318 of 2009, decision dated: 25-06-2009(Against the judgment, dated 4-6-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2005)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., CH. IJAZ AHMED AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Petition No.318 of 2009, decision dated: 25-06-2009(Against the judgment, dated 4-6-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2005)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., CH. IJAZ AHMED AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ISMAEEL
VS
. THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29(d)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Official witnesses---Recovery from vehicle---Proof of---Shifting of onus to prove---Chars weighing 39 kilograms and opium weighing 3 kilograms was recovered from inside four doors of the car which was being driven by accused---Trial Court convicted the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, which conviction and sentence was maintained by High Court---Validity---Mere fact that prosecution witnesses belonged to Anti-Narcotics Force, by itself could not be considered valid reason to discard their statements---Chars and opium recovered from four doors of the car which was being driven by accused coupled with the fact that only accused was present in the car, therefore, courts below were justified to give finding against accused regarding his guilt---In case of transportation or possession of narcotics, technicalities of procedural nature or otherwise should be overlooked in the larger interest of country, if the case stood otherwise proved---Approach of Court should be dynamic and pragmatic in approaching true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions while deciding such type of cases---Court should consider entire material as a whole and if it was convinced that the case was proved then conviction should be recorded notwithstanding procedural defects---Chemical Examiner's reports regarding Chars and opium were sufficient to prove that substance recovered from accused was Chars which could be used to cause intoxication---Prosecution discharged its initial onus while proving that substance was recovered from him whereas accused failed to discharge his burden in terms of S.29 (d) of Control of Narcotic Substances. Act, 1997---Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court---Leave to appeal was refused. Mirza Shah's case 1992 SCMR 1475; Naseer Ahmed's case 2004 SCMR 1361; Riaz Ahmad's case 2004 SCMR 988; Muhammad Shah's case PLD 1984 SC 278; Said Shah's case PLD 1987 SC 288; Nadir…
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