Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 1436 2009 SLD 1436 2009 MLD 1230
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No.135 and C.S.R. No.6-N of 2006, heard on 28-05-2009
TARIQ SHAMIM AND MALIK SAEED IJAZ, JJ
Muhammad Ayub Chaudhary and Syeda B.H. Shah for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Tariq, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab for
Respondent

GUL BADSHAH

VS

THE STATE

Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c),20,21

[Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)]........S 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---Narcotics comprising 171 kilograms of "Charas", 70 kilograms of opium and 3 Kilograms of heroin, were recovered from secret cavities of the truck being driven by the accused, which stood established by his statement made under S.342, Cr.P.C., and by failure of the defence to cross-examine the recovery witness---All the tests conducted by the chemical examiner of the samples of recoverd narcotics were positive---Police and Excise Officials were as good witnesses as others, who had no motive, ill will or enmity with the accused to falsely implicate him in the crime---Investigating Officer could be a complainant as well as a witness at the same time, without any adverse effect on the prosecution case---However, in the present case complainant had not made the investigation himself---Prosecution witnesses were consistent and unanimous on all material aspects of the case---Accused had failed to rebut the presumption of criminal liability attached to him after the recovery of narcotics from his possession, as envisaged by S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Accused was transporting the aforesaid huge narcotics for sale---Conviction and sentence of death of accused were affirmed in circumstances. Zafar v. The State 2008 SCMR 1254 and State through Advocate-General, Sindh v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 ref. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 20 & 21---Search and investigation---Nature and scope---Provisions of Ss.20 and 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, are not mandatory, but directory in nature and non-observation thereof would not vitiate the trial. Zafar v. 'The State 2008 SCMR 1254 ref. ORDER TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Appellant, Gul Badshah known as Saadat Khan, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNS, Taxila, District Rawalpindi, in case bearing FIR. No.389 of 2000, dated 24-8-2000, registered with Police Station Taxila, District Rawalpindi, for offence under Article 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The learned trial Court, vide its judgment, dated 13-4-2006,…
🔒
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