P L D 2005 Peshawar 166 (PLP)
SARDAR KHAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2005 Peshawar 166 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARDAR KHAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (g) Criminal trial, (e) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (h) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2005 Peshawar 166 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (g) Criminal trial, (e) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (h) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (f) Criminal trial, (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (b) Criminal trial as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2005 Peshawar 166 (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 2005 Peshawar 166 (PLP) (SARDAR KHAN — 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)
Prosecution evidence was consistent on all material particulars, worthy of credence and inspired confidence
Recovery witnesses were not shown to be motivated by any ill-will or enmity towards the accused
No discrepancy or flaw creating dent in the prosecution version could be pointed out
Discrepancies highlighted in the prosecution evidence were minor in nature and unable to vitiate the trial
Police Officer, a witness to the commission of the offence, was not legally debarred from becoming a complainant and an Investigating Officer in the case
Police officials were competent witnesses of recovery and their testimony could not be discarded simply due to their connection with the police department
Plea taken by accused had no foundation and had not been satisfactorily proved-- Entire bulk recovered from the accused was not required by law to be sent to Chemical Examiner for opinion and report, as a meagre quantity separated out of the lot sent for analysis was sufficient to serve the purpose and on this ground alone admissibility of the report could not be challenged
Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances.
Contradiction means negation of prosecution version
Mere discrepancies in the details of the facts does not amount to contradiction.
S. 9(c)
Multiple capacity of police officer
No legal prohibition exists for a police officer to be a complainant if he is a witness to the commission of an offence and also to be an Investigating Officer so long as it does not in any way prejudice the accused.
S. 103
Search to be made in presence of witnesses
Main aim and object of enacting S.103, Cr.P.C. is to ensure effecting of recovery honestly and fairly and to exclude any possibility of concoction and transgression
Section 103, Cr.P.C. never meant to disbelieve the statements of official witnesses in any other circumstance.
S. 9(c)
Police witnesses
Police officials are competent witnesses of recovery memo. and their statements cannot be discarded merely because they belong to police department.
When an accused at a criminal trial takes a specific plea, the onus invariably shifts and he is required to produce evidence and prove his innocence or at least his plea should be supported by the attending circumstances and it should not be unfounded altogether.
Effect
When best evidence is not produced in the Court, the inference is to be drawn against the party withholding such evidence.
S. 9(c)
Entire recovered bulk not to be sent to Chemical Examiner
Law does not require that the entire bulk recovered from the accused should be sent to Chemical Examiner for opinion and report-- Meagre quantity separated out of the lot sent for analysis is considered sufficient to serve the purpose and on this ground alone admissibility of the report cannot be challenged.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.
Appellant Sardar Khan was convicted by the learned Judge, Special Court (CNS) N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, vide judgment dated 18-12-2004 for an offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,00,000 (two lac) or in default thereof to 'undergo two, years S.I., with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence through the present Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2005.
3. On the basis of prior tip off stated to have been received by the officials of ANF Peshawar on 15-12-2003. that on the said date huge quantity of narcotics will be smuggled/transported from Illaqa `Ghair' to the down country i.e. Punjab through Motor Car No.A-1125 Mansehra, a `Naka Bandi' was conducted at G.T. Road Aman Gargh Bridge, Nowshera. At about 1715 hours, aforesaid vehicle was sighted coming from Peshawar side. A signal was given to driver to stop the vehicle. The vehicle was stopped and driver and the person sitting with him on front seat, jumped from the vehicle, started firing at ANF party and made an attempt to make good their 'escape. The ANF party also started firing in retaliation. During this process, one of the accused person got hit and sustained injury on his thigh. On inquiry the injured disclosed his