| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 2105 2008 SLD 2105 2008 MLD 797 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 40 of 2001, decision dated: 20-04-2006
ZIA PERWAZ, SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERI AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 40 of 2001, decision dated: 20-04-2006
ZIA PERWAZ, SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERI AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
TAJ MUHAMMAD
VS
THE STATE
Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997
Section: 9(c)
[Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)]........S 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---Entry of departure of excise staff had shown the time of their departure as 8-00 a.m.---Same entry however, had incorporated the arrest of accused, and recovery of contraband items according to which it was effected at 10-00 a.m.---Said entry belied the prosecution story as entry was either afterthought or had been made with dishonest intent to give the benefit to accused---Investigating Officer did not investigate the case honestly---Material contradictions existed between the deposition of both prosecution witnesses---Mere presence of accused in the oil tanker from which contraband was recovered, was not sufficient to connect him with the offence, unless prosecution would bring material to establish that he had the knowledge of contraband articles lying in the said oil tanker---Prosecution in the face of the evidence produced in the case had failed to prove that accused was in the knowledge of contraband articles---Accused was not found to be the owner of the oil tanker---All said factors were sufficient to hold that evidence of both prosecution witnesses was not confidence inspiring and had material contradiction, the benefit of which must be given to accused---Impugned was passed believing the evidence, of the prosecution story though it had material contradictions and reliance upon such evidence, which was not legal to convict accused---Benefit of doubt was given to accused and he was directed to be released. M. Ismail v. State PLD 1970 Kar. 261; Latif v. State 1992 PCr.LJ 116; Loung v. State 1999 PCr.LJ 595; Abdul Sattar v. State 2002 PCr.LJ 51; Ashiq Hussain v. State 2001 PCr.LJ 1736 and Zahoor Ahmed Awan v. The State 1997 SCMR 543 rel. ORDER AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Through this appeal the appellant has impugned the judgment, dated 19th June, 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge for C.N.S. Nausheroferoze in Special Case No.25 of 2000 Re-State v. Taj Muhammad offence under section 9(c) of the C.N.S. Act, 1997 in Crime No.4 of 2000, Excise Circle Nausheroferoze whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment and to pay fine ofโฆ
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