P L D 2008 Peshawar 19 (PLP)
IMTIAZ — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2008 Peshawar 19 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IMTIAZ — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2008 Peshawar 19 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2008 Peshawar 19 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2008 Peshawar 19 (PLP) (IMTIAZ — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9(c)
Case of prosecution was that when Police party on prior information went to the spot they found cartons and packets in question lying on foot-path; that man standing nearby started running who was allegedly chased caught and that man was accused
One of the prosecution witnesses had admitted that except for the fact that accused ran away from the spot, he could not make any connection of the cartons with accused during his entire investigation
Said witness could not produce any direct or indirect evidence against accused through which he could connect accused with the said cartons
Other prosecution witness had also stated that there was no evidence to connect accused with the offence
Where prosecution had failed to bring on record any nexus or link of the narcotics recovered from accused; and when his apprehension was from a distance of one furlong in a thickly populated area; and when no site-plan was prepared; whereas it was so required in the case, so that a court could determine as to under what circumstances accused was arrested, the mere fact that someone present close to the cartons had run away or tried to run away would be only inferential evidence whereas no conviction could be recorded on inferences
Benefit of doubt was extended to accused and conviction and sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court were set aside and he was acquitted.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, C.J.
On 15-3-2004 at 1300 hours at General. Bus Stand Peshawar, on a foot-path there were certain cartons and packets lying which were searched, however, the total narcotics recovered therefrom is 60 Kg Charas Pukhta, 9 Kg. Gardah and 3200 grams opium.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that when Nisar Khan, S.H.O. in the company of Tilla Muhammad (P. W.4) and other police party based on prior information went to the spot they found the above referred cartons lying on foot-path. The man standing nearby, however, started running who was allegedly chased and apprehended who disclosed his name to be Imtiaz the appellant, therefore, whatever was recovered from the cartons is said to be in possession of the appellant.
3. Trial of the appellant has resulted into judgment of conviction dated 21-5-2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-X Peshawar who has convicted the appellant under section 9(c), CNSA and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,00,000, in default to suffer six months S. I.
4. We have gone through the statement of Nisar Khan (P. W.2) who admits that except for the fact that appellant ran away from the spot, during his entire investigation he could not make any connection of the cartons with the appellant. He was repeatedly asked if he could produce any direct or indirect evidence against the accused through which he could connect the accused-appellant with the cartons, his reply was in negative except by stating that since he has run away from the spot, therefore, he is the accused.
5. If one would go through the statement of Tilla Muhammad (P.W.4) who also stated that there would not be any connecting evidence but the, apprehension of the appellant from a distance which is about one Furlong from the place where the cartons were recovered.
6. Where prosecution has failed in bringing on record any nexus or link of the narcotics recovered with the appellant and when apprehension is from a distance of one Furlong in a thickly populated area and when no site plan is prepared whereas it was so required in this case so that a court could determine as to under what circumstances the appellant was arrested, mere fact that some one present close to the cartons has run away or tried to run away would be influential evidence whereas no conviction can be recorded on inferences. Therefore, we extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. This appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He be set free from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case. Case property stands confiscated to the State. H.B.T./196/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed. ***