Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2288 2010 SLD 2288 2010 PCRLJ 825

Criminal Jail Appeal No.2 of 2009, decision dated: 9-02-2010, hearing DATE : 29-10-2009


Haji INAYAT and others

VS

THE STATE

Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 6,8,9

(a) Words and phrases............Traffic'---Meaning and connotation of. (b) Words and phrases--- ----'Trafficker'-Meaning and connotation of. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--Ss. 6, 8 & 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---In the present case what could be said at the most against accused persons was that they were transporting charas in the truck---Nothing had been proved that would show that accused were trafficking the charas i.e. engaged in the trade or the buying or selling of charas, which would bring the matter within the meaning of S.8 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---When something was in or on board a moving conveyance (such as a truck), it was of course being transported from one place to another which was not enough by itself, question under S.6 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was whether the prohibited drug/substance was being transported by the accused---For purpose of S.6 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and in the specific context of conveyance, accused could be said to have possession of prohibited drugs which were in or on board the conveyance---Accused must have knowledge of thing or substance which he was supposed to be in possession of---If such possession with knowledge was established then it could not be necessary also to establish that accused specifically had knowledge that the thing or substance that he possessed was a prohibited drug---Accused persons were not the owners of truck in question, but they were simply its driver and his helper---Charas itself was not lying in the truck in an open or easily accessible place, but was hidden in a secret compartment inside the body of the truck and that secret compartment was not pointed out or revealed by either of accused persons; it could not be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt that accused knew or could be regarded as knowing that the charas was in or on board of the truck---Such facts could reasonably raise a suspicion and suspicion was not proof---Even the conclusion that the truck was in "exclusive possession" of accused persons was not accurate---No doubt accused were…
🔒
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