2007 PLP 2943 (YLR)
MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2943 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Aslam and Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, JJ |
| Parties | MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2943 (YLR)?
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 2007 PLP 2943 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Aslam and Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2943 (YLR) (MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chowhan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
S.9(c)
According to. the statement of prosecution witness,: recovery was allegedly effected of "Poppy Straw in grinded form", whereas quantity produced before the court was in solid form
Such fact had knocked down prosecution case at its bottom
Very recovery being doubtful, benefit of said doubt would go to accused
Prosecution having failed to prove its case, conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, were set aside and accused was acquitted and released. Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum and Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17-9-2005 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur, whereby he convicted the appellant under seetion 9(c), C.N.S.A., 1997 and sentenced him to four years and fine of Rs.10,000 in case of default in payment of fine he would have to further undergo S.I. for six months.
2. Precisely, the prosecution ease is that mi spy information the .police raided the shop of the accused applicant. He was apprehended and on query he disclosed his name Mumtaz son of Shafi and on search of his shop Poppy straw bag blue in colour was recovered which was found 12 Kgs 10 grams was separated for chemical analysis. Both samples, and. bulk were made into sealed parcels and were .taken into custody. Rs.60 was also recovered. The case was registered accordingly. The case was sent up to the Court after due investigation. Copies under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. was delivered to the appellant accused. Charge was framed. Prosecution evidence was recorded. Statement of the accused appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. was examined. The learned trial Court passed the above-said conviction and sentence.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant argued with reference to the statement of P:W.4 that the recovery was allegedly effected of Poppy straw in grinded form whereas quantity produced before the Court was in solid state. We have consulted the statement of P.W.4 who in his cross-examination stated "the Poppy straw in grinded form and not in solid state. It is correct that today I have examined it and it is solid stated." This fact knocks down the prosecution case at its bottom. The very recovery is doubtful. The benefit of slightest doubt goes to the appellant accused.
5. For what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Resultantly, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and direct acquittal of appellant-accused. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case, H.B.T./M-298/L Appeal allowed.