Possession of illicit articles

2020 PCrLJ 321 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 29Possession of illicit articlesPresumptionScope

Presumption is of possession of illicit articles unless the person being prosecuted rebuts such presumption.

2020 PCrLJ 321 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(c) & 29Possession of narcoticsPossession of illicit articlesPresumptionAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtAccused, present on front seat of vehicleConscious knowledge of accusedScopeAccused persons were allegedly found to be in possession of vehicle, the floor of which was found double

Vehicle and the accused persons were taken to the police station where the floor of the vehicle was opened through electric cutter and 54 packets of heroin were recovered from its secret cavities

Nothing incriminating was recovered from the personal possession of the accused, who was allegedly sitting on the front seat of the vehicle

Nothing was brought on record to show whether he had conscious knowledge of the contraband concealed in the secret cavities of the vehicle or he was just a front seater

Prosecution was duty bound to prove through cogent evidence that accused had conscious knowledge of the contraband recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle

High Court accepted the appeal of the accused and set aside the impugned judgment to his extent.

2020 MLD 1724 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29Transportation of narcoticsMode of making searches and arrestPossession of illicit articlesPresumptionAppreciation of evidencePolice witnessesBurden of proofScope

Accused was found transporting 14 kilograms of charas which was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle being driven by him

Prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length regarding the mode and manner of recovery, but the defence failed to create dents

Witnesses remained consistent on material aspects of the case

Defence alleged mala fide to the Seizing Officer but failed to point out as to why the police would plant such a huge quantity against the accused and why an attempt was made to implicate the accused, if innocent

Manner in which the recovery was effected, the process of weighment, the sealing of case property and the investigation showed that the case was investigated on proper lines with strict adherence to the law and procedure

Defence had failed to point out major discrepancies in the statements of witnesses

Accused argued that no efforts were made to associate private witnesses to witness the recovery but the contention held no ground as S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had done away with such formality

Police officials were as good witnesses as others and that too when no mala fide was proved against them

Prosecution had fully connected the accused with commission of the offence and it was the accused who had to prove his innocence

Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 PCrLJ 662 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 29Possession of illicit articlesPresumptionScope

Once the prosecution is able to bring on record, the evidence to discharge the initial onus of proof then the burden shifts upon the accused to prove otherwise.

2020 MLD 486 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 29Possession of illicit articlesObligation of prosecutionBurden of proofPresumption

Primary obligation of the prosecution was to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and its burden was not shifted under the presumption contained in S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Once the prosecution established recovery beyond shadow of doubt, the burden was shifted.

2014 PLD 69 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 29Possession of illicit articlesPresumption

Duty had been cast upon the court under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to presume in a trial that accused had committed the offence, unless contrary was proved.

2013 YLR 237 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 29Possession of illicit articlesPresumptionBurden of proofScope

Prosecution had the primary obligation to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and its burden was not shifted under the presumption contained in S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which section only stated that once the prosecution had established recovery beyond shadow of doubt, it was then that the burden was shifted

Section 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not absolve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove its case beyond doubt.