2004 P Cr (PLP)
AKBAR KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Shah Jehan Khan and Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | AKBAR KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Shah Jehan Khan and Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (AKBAR KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Nawaz Khan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 1st April, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Chemical Examiner's report was in positive‑‑‑Recovery of Charas from the accused had been proved by the S.H.O. and a police constable who had no enmity or malice against him for his false implication and had fully supported the prosecution case‑‑ Presence of the accused at the spot was not denied‑‑‑Defence plea was not impressive‑‑‑Section 103, Cr.P.C. being not applicable to the provisions under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, non compliance thereof had not made the trial of accused bad in the eye of law‑‑‑Discrepancies pointed' out it prosecution evidence were insignificant‑‑Functioning of the Investigating Officer as the complainant and as a witness in the case had not cast any doubt on the prosecution case‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances. Abdul Waheed v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1595; Budho Malghani v. The State 2002 MLD 1293; Muhammad Khan v. The State 1994 SCMR 1543; Buner Gul v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 728; Fida Jan v. The State 2001 SCMR 36 and State through Advocate‑General Sindh v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Special and general law‑‑‑When in an enactment a special procedure has been laid down and a special provision has been made on a particular subject, then general provision does not apply to the subject. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Recovery‑‑‑Police witnesses‑‑ Principle‑‑‑Official witnesses are as good as private witnesses‑‑‑Police officials are competent witnesses to attest a recovery memo and their testimony cannot be discarded on the ground that they belong to police Department. Fida Jan v. The State 2001 SCMR 36 ref. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, D.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Waheed v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1595; Budho Malghani v. The State 2002 MLD 1293; Muhammad Khan v. The State 1994 SCMR 1543; Buner Gul v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 728; Fida Jan v. The State 2001 SCMR 36 and State through Advocate‑General Sindh v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Special and general law‑‑‑When in an enactment a special procedure has been laid down and a special provision has been made on a particular subject, then general provision does not apply to the subject. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Recovery‑‑‑Police witnesses‑‑ Principle‑‑‑Official witnesses are as good as private witnesses‑‑‑Police officials are competent witnesses to attest a recovery memo and their testimony cannot be discarded on the ground that they belong to police Department. Fida Jan v. The State 2001 SCMR 36 ref. Khawaja Nawaz Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, D.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 1st April, 2004.