Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 1682 2008 SLD 1682 2008 SCMR 742
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.474 of 2005, decision dated: 17-12-2007.(On appeal from judgment of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 16-11-2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.672 of 2005)
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, JJ
Hafiz S.A. Rehman for Petitioners. Niar Ahmad Rathore, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan and Qari Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court for the State

MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ and another

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)----S. 9(c)---Evidence of police officials---Value---Police officials are also competent witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they were employees of the police force. Shoukat Khan v. State 2003 PCr.LJ 324 and Muhammad Azam v. State PLD 1996 SC 67 rel. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 9(c) & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Reappraisal of evidence---Recovery of narcotics---Non-compliance of provisions of S.103 Cr.P.C.---Failure to produce recovered narcotics before Trial Court---Raising of new plea---Competency---Charas weighing 28 Kgs and opium weighing 12 Kgs were recovered and taken into possession from the car in which accused persons were travelling---Trial Court convicted the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and imposed imprisonment for life, which sentence was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by accused persons was that recovered narcotic was not produced before Trial Court and provisions of S.103 Cr.P.C. were not complied with during recovery---Validity---Accused did not challenge nature of recovery substance being Charas and Opium before Trial Court or High Court, therefore, they could not turn around and say that the recovered material which was not produced at the time of trial of the case in court was other than narcotics---Prosecution witnesses were not even suggested by accused to produce remaining case property in court---Accused had neither objected nor prayed before Trial Court that entire case property should be sent to chemical examiner for his report nor they challenged that it was not the narcotic substance, thus such objection could not be raised before Supreme Court---Application of S.103 Cr.P.C. to offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1997 was excluded by S.25 of the said Act---Evidence of prosecution witnesses was straight, natural and reliable which was not shaken in any way by defence---No ill will or animosity against prosecution witnesses/police employees before occurrence had been pointed…
🔒
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