Possessing and trafficking narcotics

Case property is always relevant for the decision of the case because if the narcotics are recovered from any accused, the same should have been shown in court, and then the report of the laboratory would be helpful to the prosecution

Likewise, in narcotics cases, the conviction and sentence are based on the possession of the narcotics or on aiding, abetting or associating with the narcotics offences

In such eventuality, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to produce the case property before the court to show that this is the narcotics/case property that was recovered from accused's possession

However, if the narcotics are destroyed under section 516-A, Cr.P.C, then, such destruction should be done after issuing notice to the accused, and the destruction should be done in the presence of the accused or his representative

Magistrate is required to prepare samples of the narcotics substance that was ultimately destroyed so that a representative (sample) of the destruction process could be produced in the Court; besides, the certificate so issued by the Magistrate would also be relevant and the same should be exhibited in the Court

When the material (narcotics) is neither produced nor exhibited, the presumption can be drawn that it is not in existence at all

When the best evidence, i.e., the case property/narcotics, vehicle, etc., is withheld by the prosecution and there is no plausible explanation for the non-production of the same in court, an adverse inference or assumption against the prosecution could be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and it can easily be presumed that no such material/narcotics is in existence

In the present case, the exhibits include an application to the SHO, the FIR , a recovery memo and a report of the chemical examiner which were produced during trial; however, the narcotics substance and the vehicle, which formed the case property, were neither produced in court nor exhibited by the prosecution without plausible explanation

Prosecution had, thus, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused persons were acquitted of the charge.

Forensic Science Labortory's (FSL) report reflected that the samples were handed over to a LNK (Lance Naik) for onward transmission to FSL for analysis

Name of said person was neither cited in the calendar of witnesses nor he was produced in the Trial Court to prove as to when the samples were delivered to him for transmission to FSL and during the intervening period whether the same were in the safe custody and its transmission to FSL was safe

Safe custody of the contraband in the malkhana of the relevant police station or safe transmission of samples from the local police station to the office of the Chemical Examination was not proved by the prosecution

Appeal was allowed and judgment passed by Trial Court was set aside.

Record showed that accused was caught red-handed, narcotics were recovered from his possession and entire recovered charas was sent to the chemical analysis

Report of the Chemical Examiner was positive

Circumstances established that prosecution had discharged its burden successfully which would shift to the accused within meaning of S. 29 of the Act

Such burden would require the accused to firstly cause dent in prosecution case and secondly to establish least justify possibility of false implication or foisting of huge quantity of charas, but defence had failed in doing so

In the present case, the accused was in jail for the last five years and the family of the accused was in miserable condition

Jail report showed that the conduct of the accused during confinement was satisfactory

Accused also undertook that he would not deal with the narcotics in future

Accused was first offender and had no previous criminal record/history

Accused had claimed himself to be the only male member of the family and had served about five years of imprisonment

Accused, in circumstances was to be given the opportunity to improve himself as a law abiding citizen

In the present case, non-examination of Police Official who allegedly delivered the narcotics substance in question to the office of Chemical Examiner and made no efforts to associate any independent person from the locality as witness in the recovery proceedings, constituted mitigating circumstances

Present case was a fit one for departure from the normal practice of determining quantum of sentence, so it would serve both the purposes of deterrence and reformation, if the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced to "already undergone by him"

Sentence of the accused was altered and reduced to the period which he had already undergone

Appeal was dismissed by maintaining the conviction awarded to the accused, however, the sentence awarded to the accused was altered and reduced to the period he had already undergone.

Trial court acquitted accused, but directed SHO concerned to register a criminal case against Police Official concerned under S.26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, who was complainant in the case and allegedly recovered narcotic (charas) weighing 250-grams from accused

Validity

Section 26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, could only be invoked where it appeared that seizure and arrest was vexatious and unnecessary and direction for registration of FIR only be exercised when it was established on the record through cogent evidence that the narcotics had been foisted upon the accused and he was falsely implicated in the case, otherwise, in each and every case of acquittal, it would be pressed by the accused to direct the Police Officer for registration of FIR against the complainant (Police official) or to proceed in terms of S. 26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 against the complainant (police official), which would certainly damage the scheme of law and the Police Officers would disincline to be the complainant in the case

Contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which might have occurred due to lapse of time, could not cause punishment of the complainant (police official)

Criminal revision was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment to the extent of directions issued for registration of FIR against the accused/appellant as well as initiation of departmental proceedings.

Said vehicle was to be confiscated in terms of S.32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in favour of State.

On pointation of accused tablets containing ingredients falling within the definition of controlled and psychotropic substances, were recovered from cavities of motor car driven by accused

Search of house of accused, led to discovery and recovery of a huge quantity of such tablets

Samples from the recovered tablets had been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and as per report thereof, said tablets contained ingredients, which fell within the definition of controlled and psychotropic substances

Said drug was used in clinical pain relief, but was also used by drug users

Plea of accused was that Forensic Science Laboratory having not been equipped with the skill and equipment, was not competent to examine recovered tablets and give any opinion

Validity

Any discussion on the competency of Forensic Science Laboratory to examine the samples of the recovered tablets and authenticity or otherwise of its report; in the light of the rules framed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would amount to deeper appreciation falling in the domain of the Trial Court

Witnesses to the recovery proceedings, who had no ill-will or enmity with accused, had fully supported the stance of the seizing Officer

Accused, were prima facie connected with the commission of offence; punishment of which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Petition for bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that seven packets each containing 1200 grams of opium and packets of heroin two containing 100 grams of heroin and two containing 500 grams of heroin were recovered from the bag owned by the accused

Out of the said quantity of opium and heroin, five grams from each sealed into parcel and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis whose report confirmed the contents to be that of opium and heroin

Record showed that said packets were recovered from the bag allegedly laid beneath the foot of the accused who was seated in the coaster, but nothing was mentioned in the murasila to show that sample of 5 grams of opium and heroin were separated for the purpose of Chemical Examiner analysis

Samples which were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis could not be said to be the samples of that case or some other case, therefore, genuineness of report was not free from doubt and it was not safe to rely upon the same

Marginal witnesses of the recovery memo did not state anything about separation of the samples from the recovery of contraband for the purpose of Chemical Examiner analysis though the same was mentioned in the recovery memo

Recovered narcotics were neither exhibited nor produced before the Trial Court, which was the best evidence of the prosecution against the accused

Non-production of the case property in the court was fatal to the prosecution case and would destroy its very foundation

Prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused beyond a ray of doubt

Appeal was therefore, accepted and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Trial Court.

Prosecution witness deposed that the colour of recovered charas was greenish-brown, whereas the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, had revealed the colour of charas as blackish-brown

Complainant, neither in complaint, nor in his statement before court, mentioned the time as to when accused was nabbed

Prosecution had not been able to discharge its onus of proving the safe custody of recovered substance and such omission gave rise to doubt

Original report issued by Forensic Science Laboratory was not tendered in evidence, instead its attested photocopy was placed on record

Prosecution was required to produce the original document and not its photocopy, even if attested

Production of photocopy of report purported to have been issued by Government Analyst was in no manner in consonance with S.36 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Prosecution, in circumstances, was legally obliged to prove the contents of Laboratory report by calling the Government Analyst as witness during trial

Failure of prosecution to do the needful had rendered the report as of no legal consequences

Secondary evidence (photocopy), in respect of a document could only be tendered if it was shown to have been destroyed or lost

Before placing on record the copy of report, no explanation for failure to produce its original was offered by prosecution

Court could not allow to tender secondary evidence, in circumstances

Report in question having not been brought on record in accordance with law, same was not worth consideration in any manner

Said lacunae and shortcomings raised reasonable doubt, benefit of which would go to the accused

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused, were set aside, and he was acquitted of the charge and was ordered to be released forthwith, in circumstances.

Alleged recovery of narcotics, was not made from the direct physical and conscious possession of the accused, but was recovered from the house of acquitted co-accused

Mere presence of accused, would not be sufficient to connect accused with alleged narcotic substance

Prosecution had to prove two elements of possession i.e. (i) corpus, the element of physical control; and (ii) animus or intent with which such control was exercised and not merely the physical presence of accused in the house, the possession could not be inferred

Prosecution had not established connection with the parcel of sample deposited with the office of Chemical Examiner; it was unsafe to base conviction of accused on the basis of testimony of prosecution witnesses which could not be said to be trustworthy on the facts and circumstances of the case

Prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt

Trial Court, was not justified in convicting accused for committing the offence without any legal evidence worthy of credit available on record

Inherent illegality in the matter, being present, conviction of accused could not be upheld

Findings of the Trial Court were set aside

Accused was acquitted of the charge, and was directed to be released, in circumstances.

All the prosecution witnesses were police officials and no private person was associated without any valid reason to witness recovery proceedings, despite place of incident was a busy place

No efforts were made to persuade any person from the locality to act as witness of incident

Material discrepancies had been noticed in the documents produced by the prosecution at trial and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses in respect of timings

Weight of recovered charas was 2500 grams, but as per report of Chemical Examiner the gross weight of charas was 2554 grams

Prosecution had failed to justify how the weight of charas was increased by 54 grams

Said ambiguity had made the case of prosecution highly doubtful

Prosecution had failed to satisfy on the point of safe custody of property at Police Station and its transit to Chemical Examiner

Prosecution had not examined Head Muharrir and the Police Official who deposited the charas to the office of Chemical Examiner

Prosecution had failed to discharge its liability of proving the guilt of accused beyond shadow of doubt

While extending benefit of doubt, conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court against accused by impugned judgment, were set aside

Accused was acquitted of the charge and was ordered to be released forthwith, in circumstances.

Case of prosecution being based upon the evidence of Police Officials, no question would arise for tampering their evidence at the hands of accused

Case of prosecution rested upon the evidence of Police Officials, their evidence was required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial as to whether offence as alleged in the FIR was committed by accused in a manner as narrated by the complainant or otherwise

Nothing was on record to show that accused was previous convict or had been arrested in other case of similar nature in the past

Complainant (Sub-Inspector of Police), had acted in the case as Investigating Officer

Evidence of the complainant, who himself conducted investigation, though was admissible, but for the safe administration of justice, he should have entrusted the investigation to some other Police Officer, so that nobody could raise any finger on the investigation

Trial Court was yet to determine as to whether investigation carried out by the complainant who himself had acted as Investigating Officer of the case, could safely be relied upon or otherwise

Accused had already sat in the B. Com. (Part-I) examination and relevant documents were on record

Examination was scheduled to be held

If at such a stage bail was refused, career of accused would be spoiled

Accused, was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 250-kilograms charas in different bags were recovered from the house of accused who was arrested on the spot

Ocular account was furnished by two witnesses including complainant

Record showed that a huge quantity of 250-kilograms charas was recovered during search of the house of accused

Accused had pleaded that provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C. had been violated, whereas the applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases had been excluded

Non-inclusion of private witness in recovery proceedings was not a serious defect to vitiate the conviction

Prosecution witnesses had furnished straight forward and confidence inspiring evidence and there was nothing on record to show that they had deposed against the accused maliciously or out of any animus

Police Officials could not plant such a huge quantity of narcotic upon the accused from their own source

Witnesses were cross-examined at length, but no material discrepancy or contradiction in the evidence was pointed out by the defence

Complainant had fully supported the version of FIR and recovery of charas from the house of accused

Mashir also corroborated the evidence of complainant

No enmity, ill-will or grudge had been alleged or proved against the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the accused

Prosecution had succeeded to bring the guilt of accused home and defence had failed to point out any material illegality or serious infirmity committed by the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment

Family members of the accused were extremely poor and were virtually starving due to confinement of accused in jail

Jail roll reflected that the accused had served out the sentence of twenty three years, eight months and twenty eight days including remissions and by now the accused remained in custody for twenty four years, two months and twenty eight days coupled with the fact that accused was first offender and had no previous criminal record to his credit

Appeal was partly allowed in such circumstances and conviction of accused was maintained, but the sentence of life imprisonment of the accused was altered and reduced to the period he had already undergone.

Said police Officer ran after him and while running, a black colour packet fell down from the apparel of the accused who, however, succeeded in escape

Said packet was picked up and opened wherein charas was recovered, similar packet was also found concealed in the spare wheel of rickshaw

Recovered quantity of charas was weighed and found 2-kilo and 30-grams, from which a sample of 10-grams was separated for chemical analysis and the sample as well as case property were sealed on the spot

Record showed that Police Officer/witness not only claimed to have identified the accused by his name, his parentage as well as residential address, but surprisingly the final report was submitted against the accused under S.512, Cr.P.C. without describing any effort of arrest of the accused

Said conduct on part of the Police Officer/witness was quite strange and even was against the implied duties

Complainant in his examination-in-chief identified the accused present in the court as the same but in cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know the accused prior to the incident and he did not see the accused sitting in the rickshaw and he had seen the accused from his back side, while he was running

Identification of accused by the complainant in such situation was based on hearsay evidence, which was not reliable and the same did not come under the definition of res-gestae

Complainant stated in his examination-in-chief that only 10-grams of charas was separated as sample for sending to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis

Such sampling first required recovery of narcotics from possession of the sent-up accused and only then a claim of conviction could be examined

Record showed that a person who was running a brothel house had lodged FIR against the accused

After lodging the said FIR, the wife of the accused had lodged FIR against the complainant and said Police Officer

Such circumstances suggested that Police Officer had a motive to involve the accused

Specific allegation of animosity and ill-will was alleged by the accused against the said Police Officer, who admitted to have been prosecuted on complaint of wife of the accused

Such a witness, in circumstances, must have associated private witnesses for alleged recovery particularly when the alleged place of incident was thickly populated area

Admitted enmity/annoyance between accused and the star witness/ Police Officer, safe escape of accused from scene, falling of packet from apparel of accused and recovery of another packet, concealed in spare wheel of rickshaw, were the circumstances, which brought serious clouds over testimony of such interested witness and made recovery doubtful

Recovered quantity of charas was shown as 2-kilo and 30-grams, but only a small sample of the same was sent for chemical analysis

Prima facie, in the present case, the process of sampling was not in accordance with law

Conduct of the star witness appeared to be not consistent and probable, hence no conviction could legally sustain on such testimony

Investigating Officer had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not tried to examine any private person of the locality at the time of site inspection, did not prepare the memo of site inspection, did not try to locate the owner of rickshaw nor the said rickshaw was produced in the court as case property

Delay of five days in sending the allegedly recovered material to Office of Chemical Examiner and there being nothing on record to ensure safe custody of such property during intervening period, prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, benefit of which, would resolve in favour of accused

Appeal was allowed in circumstances and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded against him by the Trial Court.

Quantity of narcotic exceeding ten Kilograms, case fell under Cl.(c) of S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for which death penalty or imprisonment for life had been provided

Record of taxi in question had shown that registration number affixed on the taxi was false one which had been allotted to a truck

Case of accused fell within four corners of S.6 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

No enmity, ill-will or grudge had been alleged against prosecution witnesses

Sufficient material had been brought by the prosecution on the record, including report of Chemical Examiner relating to positive report of narcotic substance

Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C.

Alleged recovery was witnessed by the Excise Officials and accused had failed to bring anything on record that he had falsely been roped in the offence because of any rivalry with the official witnesses

Person who was on driving seat of the vehicle, would be held responsible for transportation of narcotic having knowledge of the same

Evidence led by the prosecution, was in line with the case with no material variation or lapses

Memo of recovery and the FIR, stood fully corroborated and proved to the satisfaction of the Trial Court

No defence evidence at all had been adduced

Prosecution having successfully proved its case against accused, Trial Court had rightly convicted him.

Accused was arrested at the spot and huge quantity of charas (3000 grams) was recovered from his possession, which being costly, could not be foisted

Report of Chemical Examiner revealed that recovered property was charas

Accused, had failed to show enmity with the Police or any reason for his false implication in the case

Witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., had fully supported the version of FIR

Offence for which accused had been charged fell within restrictive clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. in such cases had been excluded by S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

No case for exercise of discretion in favour of accused having been made out, bail application being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

Both the accused persons, were responsible for transportation of huge quantity of charas having knowledge of the same in their vehicle

Nowhere it was mentioned or suggested by both the accused that vehicle in question, was either hired by someone else or loaded by the labourers and that they had no knowledge about the availability of narcotic substance in it

Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. in the narcotic cases had been excluded and non-inclusion of any private witness was not a serious defect to vitiate the conviction

Excise Officials, were competent and their evidence could not be discarded only for the reasons that they were Excise Officials

Said officials had furnished straight forward and confidence inspiring evidence and there was nothing on record to show that they had deposed against the accused persons maliciously or out of any animus

No proof of enmity with the complainant and the prosecution witnesses, having been brought on record, in absence thereof, competence of prosecution witnesses being officials, was rightly believed

Chemical Examiner's report regarding charas, was sufficient to prove that the substance recovered from accused persons could be used to cause intoxication

All witnesses had deposed in line to support the prosecution case and despite cross-examination at length, defence had failed to make any dent in the prosecution case or to extract any material contradictions fatal to prosecution case

Prosecution had succeeded to prove the guilt of accused persons and accused persons, had failed to point out any material illegality or infirmity committed by the Trial Court

Impugned judgment, did not call for any interference

Appeal was dismissed being devoid of merits.

Prosecution case was that on spy information, the complainant being Police Officer stopped a truck and after in-depth search, found 20-kilograms of charas in a white plastic bag in the shape of slabs

200-grams of charas from each slab totalling 8-kilograms was taken for analysis and rest of 12-kilograms of charas was sealed separately

Prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge against the accused, examined complainant and mashir

Said witnesses had deposed in same line that on spy information, they stopped the truck in question, arrested a suspected person and found charas in the truck

Samples from all the slabs were separated and sent for chemical examination

During cross-examination, defence failed to bring on record any defect regarding the recovery of charas, separation of samples for chemical examination or any variation in the weight of samples sent to the Chemical Examiner

Record transpired that samples were sent within time for chemical examination and Chemical Examiner's report was in positive

No suggestion was put from the defence side regarding enmity of prosecution witnesses against the accused to implicate him falsely or to foist such a huge quantity of narcotic material upon him

Nothing had been brought on record by the defence against the Investigating Officer to show any animosity or ulterior motives of false implication

Circumstances established that prosecution had succeeded to bring the guilt of accused to home, thus appeal was liable to be dismissed

Only 200-grams from each slab, totalling 8-kilograms of charas was sent for chemical examination, and as per policy of sentence only 8-kilograms of charas sent to the chemical analyst was to be considered while convicting the accused

As remaining 12-kilograms of charas was not sent for analysis, therefore, accused could not be burdened for the said quantity of charas

Accused was neither shown to be a previous convict nor involved in any other case of drug trafficking

By applying the policy of sentence, while dismissing the appeal sentence of accused was reduced from imprisonment for life to imprisonment for ten years and six months with fine, in circumstances.

When, on spy information, Police party had proceeded to the place of incident, they were under legal obligation to have associated with them independent person to witness the possible arrest of accused and recovery of narcotic from him; but that was not done for no obvious reason; which rendered their proceeding to the place of incident doubtful

One plastic shopper containing charas in shape of three pieces weighing 1250 grams, was allegedly recovered from the accused

One piece weighing to be 250 grams, was sealed for purpose of chemical examination and sent to Chemical Examiner

Liability of accused, if any, was only to the extent of 250 grams of charas which was subjected to chemical examination which constituted offence punishable under S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Sample of charas was sent to Chemical Examiner, with an unexplained delay of ten days from recovery of charas; possibility of substitution or tampering with the sample, could not be ruled out in circumstances

In presence of such inconsistency, the evidence of complainant and his witnesses, could not be relied upon to maintain conviction and sentence against accused

Prosecution had not been able to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of doubt

Plea of innocence of accused taken before the Trial Court, could not be lost sight of, in circumstances

Conviction and sentence, awarded to accused by the Trial Court could not be sustained, which were set aside

Accused was acquitted of the offence and was ordered to be released forthwith, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 120 plastic bundles containing 120-kilograms charas were recovered from the secret cavities of the truck driven by the accused

Out of the said charas, complainant separated 200-grams from each bundle and sealed the same separately for sending to the Chemical Examiner

Record showed that accused was arrested while he was in possession of the truck

Accused was found sitting on driving seat of the truck

Prosecution had examined complainant and mashir, both the witnesses had fully supported the prosecution case on material points and had categorically deposed that the accused was arrested at Excise Check Post and charas was recovered from the secret cavity of the truck

Complainant had produced chemical report which showed that the parcels were received at laboratory on the next day of the incident in sealed condition and seals were perfect

Result of the test showed that packets were found containing charas

Accused had pleaded that the complainant had acted as Investigating Officer of his own FIR and that there was violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C., as no private person was joined in recovery proceedings except police officials

Police Officer was not prohibited under the law to be a complainant if he was witness of an offence

Such officer could also be an Investigating Officer so long as it did not prejudice the accused person

Application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases had been excluded by S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, therefore the contention of accused carried no weight

Accused was found sitting on driving seat and driving the truck at the time of incident, hence he was incharge of the truck, which was in his control and possession and he was responsible for the same

No previous enmity or mala fide had been alleged by the accused against the complainant and mashir

Complainant and mashir had supported each other on material points and there was no major contradictions in their evidence

Prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt and the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court did not suffer from any infirmity, hence the same was maintained

Appeal being devoid of merits was dismissed in circumstances.

Police had not associated any private person as witness of recovery of alleged charas nor made an effort to involve any private person to act as a witness to maintain transparency of alleged recovery; nor furnished any explanation in that regard which had made the story of prosecution doubtful

Benefit of doubt could be extended in favour of accused even at bail stage

Accused was behind bars for two months

Where recovery of substance, did not exceed the limit of 1500 grams, the case being of borderline between clauses (b) and (c) of S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, accused was entitled to bail

Challan had been submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction and statements of two prosecution witnesses had been recorded

Prima facie there were contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses so recorded; on that ground also, accused was entitled to bail

No recovery had been made from accused, rather he had been involved in a false case

Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Trial Court accepted their plea of guilt and convicted them and awarded the punishment of the period already undergone with a fine of Rs. 30,000/

Prosecution had alleged that a lenient view had been taken, which would encourage the likeminded criminals

Validity

Record showed that accused persons pleaded guilty at the time of framing of charge

Courts had always taken a lenient view in such like cases, harsh view would not advance the cause of justice

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Recovery memos were prepared by the Police in presence of witnesses and out of seized material 30 grams of charas and 11 grams of heroin, was sent for chemical examination

Prima facie, accused was connected with the offence, punishable under S. 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985, which entailed maximum sentence of life imprisonment

Case of accused, fell under prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused was prima facie involved in non-bailable offence and in such like cases bail could not be granted to accused

Trial Court had exercised its discretion in a judicious manner, while declining bail to accused, which did not warrant any interference by Shariat Court.

Counsel for accused pleaded that accused lady, could be granted bail, as she was a widow, and she had remained in judicial lock-up for the last two months

Plea, was repelled in view of the recovery of huge quantity of contraband charas from the direct personal possession of accused

Offence for which accused was charged squarely fell within the restrictive limb of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Mere womanhood or widowhood, was no good ground to enlarge accused on bail in such like cases and that too, when the smuggling of narcotics through ladies and minors had become a common phenomenon

Accused, prima facie linked with the commission of offence, was disentitled to bail

Bail petition being bereft of any merits, stood dismissed, in circumstances.

Huge quantity of narcotics had not been recovered from direct possession of accused, rather from the secret cavities of vehicle being occupied by co-accused

Accused had not been named in the initial FIR, rather he was nominated by co-accused in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.

Except said statement of co-accused, no evidence was collected by Investigating Agency, which had made the case of accused that of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. for the purpose of bail

Co-accused, had nowhere mentioned the name of accused, even in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Co-accused did not name accused, nor described his role in the commission of offence

Bail could be granted, if an accused had good case for bail on merits and mere absconsion, would not come in way while granting the bail

Mere abscondence of an accused, could not be deemed sufficient to refuse bail to him, if his case called for further probe into his guilt within the scope of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail could not be withheld as a punishment

Mistaken relief of bail could be repaired by convicting accused, if proved guilty, but no proper reparation could be offered for unjustified incarceration, albeit, his acquittal in the long run

No recovery of contraband had been effected from the direct possession of accused or at his instance and pointation

Accused could not be deprived of the concession of bail, as he was no more required to the Police for further investigation

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were not of great importance as statements of said witnesses were recorded in the court after about 4 years of the registration of the case

With the afflux of time, it was quite natural that some minor contradictions could occur in the evidence of the witnesses

All the prosecution witnesses remained firm on the material points and they had successfully discharged the initial burden of proving the recovery

When no prejudice was caused to accused, then functioning of complainant in his dual capacity as complainant as well as Investigating Officer, was neither illegal nor unlawful

Case property having been produced before the Trial Court, non-production of car in question, could not be termed as fatal to the prosecution case, as recovery was not effected from any of the secret compartments or cavities of the said car, rather the heroin was recovered from the bags, which were lying in the rear seat

Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being a special law, having clearly precluded the applicability of S.103 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, non-association of public witness during the recovery proceedings, was of no consequence

Accused persons could not furnish any plausible explanation for their false implication in the case

Plea of alibi taken by accused, was not supported by any independent evidence

Prosecution, had discharged the onus of proof by leading cogent and convincing evidence, but accused had failed to the contrary

High Court observed that approach of the court, while dealing with the case of narcotics, should always be dynamic, and court was to overlook technicality in the larger interest of the country and public at large; court had to consider the entire material on record as a whole and, if it was convinced that the case was proved, conviction should be recorded

Prosecution having successfully proved the charge against accused person by leading sufficient and cogent evidence, Trial Court had rightly appreciated the same while recording the conviction of accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Accused persons, were first offenders and having no antecedents of any criminal case to their score, death penalty being harsh punishment was converted into life imprisonment with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., in circumstances.

Appellant/accused, was found in possession of three cans, each containing twenty seven litres of Acetic Anhydrine, a contraband designated as psychotropic substance under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Trial was in progress, and evidence of recovery witnesses, had already been recorded; the Report of Chemical Examiner was before the court

Appellant, being dissatisfied with the report of Chemical Examiner, moved application for fresh analysis of the contraband for the purpose of determination of its chemical composition

Contention of appellant was that it would be in the interest of justice that the seized contraband be sent to any laboratory other than Punjab Forensic Science Agency

Validity

Prosecution of offences was a State attribute; State functionaries and institutions, were tasked to carry out the job; there was presumption of genuineness to such pursuits

Said powers could not be delegated to private enterprises chosen by a person confronting indictment

Any flaw or defect in the Forensic Report, could not be pressed into service for fresh analysis

Accused was not required to establish his innocence through such methodologies

Forensic analysis of the contraband, in the case, was undertaken soon after registration of the case; it was intriguing as to how the appellant became suspicious about the psychotropic character of the stuff attributed to him

Appellant having denied the charge, no onus was cast upon him within the contemplation of Art. 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to discharge any responsibility which could necessitate the proposed exercise

Appeal was dismissed.

Detail appeared on the record when prosecution witness, deposed that contraband, charas contained 10 complete slabs/slices, and one broken piece, which would mean that charas was consisted of 11 slabs/cakes

Recovered substance, 1250 grams, if devided by eleven, an average of the number of pieces/slices, would make it 113.63 grams against each slice/piece thereof

Testimonies of the prosecution witnesses did not reveal that the complainant segregated a sample from each of the slices/cakes/prices; rather he had deposed that he separated 50 grams from the recovered bulk (1250 grams), so as to render it into one packet for chemical analysis

Such act created a pitfall in the prosecution case

Obscurity hovered over the prosecution case, as to whether sample of 50 grams was segregated by the complainant from one slab/slice, or from all of those which gave rise to a crucial question, which had not been viably answered by prosecution during the course of the trial

Estimation could be that one slab had been used by the complainant to segregate sample of 50 grams for transmitting it to the office of the Chemical Examiner for chemical analysis

Nine or ten slices/slabs of the recovered stuff seemed to have gone un-represented

Rest of the material recovered would be rejected as mere junk

Accused, could be held responsible for having only one slice/slab of charas weighing 113.63 grams in his possession at the time of his arrest

Appeal was partly allowed

Conviction of accused recorded for an offence under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was converted into the one, under S.9(b) of said Act

Accused was sentenced to R.I. for one year and three months, with payment of fine of Rs.9,000.

Complainant segregated, ten grams charas from each packet for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner for its analysis

Net weight of said five samples was fifty grams in toto

Complaint and seizure-memo, did not disclose as to how many slabs/cakes/slices, were there in one packet

Complainant, deposed in his testimony, that each packet consisted of 9/10 slabs/slices, each showing weight of 111.11 grams or 100 grams

Obscurity hovered over the prosecution case, as to whether sample of ten grams was segregated by the complainant from one slab/slice, or from all 9/10 slabs of a packet

In such an ambiguity, only one estimation could be made that one slab each from all packets, had been used by the complainant to segregate five samples, weighing ten grams each

Prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of accused only to the extent of possessing 500 grams of contraband charas and had failed to establish its case against the accused under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and could only substantiate offence against accused under S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Conviction of accused recorded for offence under S.9(c) of the Act was converted into the one under S.9(b) of the Act

Accused was sentenced to R.I. for one year and six months, and to pay fine

Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. would be extended to accused, in circumstances.

Out of those 19 packets 15 packets contained garda charas weighing 15 Kg, 2 packet containing charas weighing 2 Kg, and other 2 packets contained 2 Kg opium

Complainant and witness of recovery were reliable witnesses

All the prosecution witnesses had made consistent statements before the Trial Court

No glaring contradiction was pointed out in their evidence, which could create any doubt in the prosecution story; so as to extend its benefit in favour of accused

Accused had remained unable to point out any background of animosity between him and Police Officials to justify his false implication in the case

Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C.

Evidence of Police Officials, was worthy of credence as that of any other witness and conviction could not be set aside on that score alone

Judgment of the Trial Court to the extent of accused on the charge of offence under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not call for any interference

Quantum of sentence awarded to accused appeared to be unjustified, as 2 packets of charas consisted of many pieces, but the prosecution case was silent about the exact number of pieces of charas recovered from said 2 packets

Testimony of prosecution witnesses, did not reveal that complainant segregated a sample from each of the packets/pieces for chemical analysis, which had created a pitfall in the prosecution case

Besides one and half packet of garda charas weighing 1500 grams, one packet of opium weighing 1000 grams and 200 grams charas, rest of the material recovered, would be rejected as mere junk

Accused, could be held responsible for having said quantity of narcotics

Maintaining conviction of accused, his sentence of imprisonment for life, was reduced to R.I. for six years

Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., was also extended to accused, in circumstances.

Contents of the FIR, as well as the report of the Chemical Examiner, did not reveal that when alleged substance was recovered, was containing flowers or fruiting top and it was nowhere mentioned that the cannabis plant (Bhung) was with seeds or not, which was against the provisions of S.2(d) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Whether the contraband was a simple plant or not, was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence

Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, prima facie, would favour the accused

Contraband recovered, neither was described in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, nor in the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979

Case of accused would become one of further inquiry, entitling him for the grant of post-arrest bail

Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.

Sub-Inspector of Police, who appeared as prosecution witness, completely deposed in line with the other prosecution witnesses; and his evidence could not be shattered in any way

Report of Chemical Examiner, also affirmed that recovered substance was "charas"

Accused admitted that none of the officials, had any previous enmity

No convincing evidence was led by accused which could shatter case of prosecution

Prosecution had fully complied with the mandate of S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Investigation in the case was conducted strictly in accordance with the mode provided under the law

No legal impediment existed in the way of Police Officer, who was a complainant of the case and also acted as an Investigating Officer, simultaneously, unless accused established some prejudice as a consequence of such dual capacity

Quantum of punishment, was dependent upon the quantity of the recovered substance, and if the quantity would exceed ten Kilograms, the punishment would not be less than imprisonment for life

Eleven Kilograms charas having been recovered from accused and two kilograms charas have been recovered from co-accused, accused could not be awarded punishment less than imprisonment for life

Present was not the only case against accused, but he was involved in nine other cases relating to the same offence

Prosecution had fully proved its case against accused; and there was no doubt left with regard to guilt of accused

Trial Court had committed no illegality, while convicting accused

Accused having failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity, requiring interference of High Court, judgment of the Trial Court was maintained, in circumstances.

Safe custody of the recovered substance, or its samples, being not discernable from the record, it was extremely unsafe to uphold and maintain conviction and sentence of accused recorded by the Trial Court

Prosecution case was that charas was found in shape of slices, but complainant separated only 10 grams for chemical analysis, which did not meet with the requirements that if no sample was taken from any particular packet/slab; or if different packets not kept separately for their analysis by the Chemical Examiner, then the same would not be representative sample

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused and impugned judgment of the Trial Court being based on wrong premises of law and facts, impugned judgment was set aside; accused was acquitted of the charges and being on bail, his surety stood discharged.

No specific role had been assigned to accused as neither he was owner, nor co-driver or cleaner of impounded truck; his mere presence at the relevant time at the truck required serious consideration

Accused was behind the bars for the last 2 years and 5 months and the prosecution had failed to examine even a single witness during that period to substantiate the charge against accused

All prosecution witnesses were Police Officials and it was not a difficult task for the prosecution to procure attendance of the complainant and one mashir and examine them before the Trial Court

Unnecessary delay reflected that complainant was not interested to proceed with the case and merely interested to keep accused behind the bars

Challan had been submitted; charge had also been framed; accused was no more required further for investigation

Further detention of accused would not serve any useful purpose in circumstances

No apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence seemed as all prosecution witnesses were officials

Accused never remained involved in any criminal case, nor was convicted for any offence

While dealing with the question of bail, court should examine the entire circumstances of the case tentatively, irrespective of the sensitivity and heinousness of the crime

Bail was not to be withheld as a matter of punishment

Accused having been succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry as envisaged in S.497(2), Cr.P.C., he was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Evidence of prosecution witnesses, was consistent, confidence inspiring, and did not suffer from any material contradictions, irregularities or discrepancies to cause irreparable blow to the authenticity of the prosecution case

Evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the point of recovery of narcotic substances from the possession of accused at the given place, had not been shattered, in their lengthy cross-examination

Witnesses had reiterated the case against accused in its entirety with the arrest and recovery proceedings on a well-worded manner corresponding with the contents of FIR and memo

Minor variation in the evidence, pointed out by accused, had not caused a serious or reasonable doubt to give benefit thereon to accused

Some variation did occur naturally, in the evidence of the witnesses, which neither would take away or reduce the intrinsic value of the evidence, nor imply false implication of accused

Delay in sending the narcotic substances for chemical analysis, was also not fatal for the prosecution, as the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which regulate the sending of samples to Chemical Examiner, were directory and not mandatory in nature and import

Said Rules did not make it obligatory for the Investigating Officer to send sample of narcotic substances, within the stipulated period of seventy-two hours

Departure from applying such scheme in sending the sample within a certain period, would not undermine, or frustrate the larger purpose for which Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had been enacted

Nothing was on record to suggest that accused was a previous convict in narcotic substances case

Last jail roll, reflected that accused had served sentence of 2 years, 3 months and 4 days and had earned remission of 8 months and his un-expired portion of sentence was 7 years 5 months and 26 days

Conviction and sentence from 10 years and fine Rs.100,000 awarded to accused vide impugned judgment, was modified to 4 years 6 months, and fine to Rs.20,000.

Contradictions in the evidence, which could be considered material for acquitting the accused, must create reasonable doubt in the prudent mind, and be strong enough to undermine and weaken the main features of the prosecution case to give benefit thereof to accused

Plethora of such circumstances, was not a requirement of law

If there was a single situation or circumstance creating a reasonable doubt to a sensible person, the benefit of which not as a matter of grace, but as a right, could be extended to accused in the shape of his acquittal

Despite deep examination of the record, no worthwhile discrepancy, was found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and accused was not found entitled for his acquittal on that account.

Complainant allegedly apprehended the accused and recovered 1600 grams of charas from his possession in a populated area

Despite prior information complainant failed to make any serious efforts to associate any private person to act as mashir, nor associated any person from the locality to maintain the transparency of alleged recovery

No cogent explanation was given as to why complainant was unable to secure two Mashirs from public from the area

Samples of recovered charas were dispatched by the complainant timely, but after lapse of more than five months and trial was held up for want of Chemical Examiner's report

Accused, in circumstances, had been deprived of the right of fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution

Accused was behind the bars without any further proceedings and was suffering due to the act of negligence and transgression of prosecution

Investigation had been completed, and after submission of challan, charge had also been framed; accused was no more required for investigation; his further detention would not serve any useful purpose, as basic rule was bail and not jail

No apprehension existed for tampering with the prosecution evidence as all prosecution witnesses were Police Officials

Accused having succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail on ground of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Offence against accused entailed only a punishment of seven years, which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused, was entitled for the grant of bail.

Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C., were not attracted in the case of personal search and had specifically been excluded by S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Quantity of "charas" recovered from accused marginally exceeded 1000 grams and it was a border line case of S.9(b) or S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which attracted provisions of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed to accused, in circumstances.

Propriety demanded that in a case where an FIR was lodged by a Police Official, he should avoid to conduct the investigation; as his investigation, howsoever fair, could be challenged by accused on the ground that a fair and impartial investigation had not been carried out; which had prejudiced the case

Accused who was below the age of 18 years, was in judicial lock-up since last 8 months without any substantial progress in the trial, was the first offender and there was no chance of his abscontion, or tampering with the case

Case of accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry

Bail, was allowed to accused, in circumstances.

Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, no doubt, excluded the association of private witnesses, but, it did not confer unbridled right to public to make it an excuse for all cases, when there was chance that either accused would disappear from the scene; or the narcotics removed somewhere else

Conduct of Police, could not be given shelter; and non-association of independent witnesses, would favour accused, even for limited purpose of bail

Shop of accused (place of recovery) was situated in a thickly populated area; and local Police had no authority to search the shop without resorting to codal formalities provided under law to carry out the search, which had also not been followed, rather violated

Maximum punishment provided for the offence was only up to 7 years, which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Concession of bail was extended to accused, if there were no compelling circumstances to refuse the same

Accused, was neither habitual, nor a previous convict and there existed no special circumstance to refuse the concession of bail to him

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Accused did not press his appeal against his conviction and prayed for reduction in his sentences with contention that he was a young man having large family responsibilities and that due to his detention in jail, he and his family had morally and mentally suffered a lot and financially crippled; that he had learnt a lesson and had shown remorse and penitence and he wanted to unburden his conscious; that during serving his sentence in jail, he had improved himself and realized his mistake by committing such shameful offence which had given bad name to his religious family; that he undertook not to repeat such an offence in future; that he wanted to reform and rehabilitate himself as a responsible citizen; and that ends of justice had already been served

Validity

Accused who was in custody since 30-1-2013, was the first offender, who had shown his remorse and penitence during serving the sentence in jail

Accused had already served upon more than 3 years in jail and as per record his conduct was found satisfactory

Accused wanted to reform and rehabilitate himself as a responsible citizen in the society in future

Supreme Appellate Court observed that accused deserved leniency as prayed for, conviction of accused was maintained, but his sentence was reduced from 8 years' R.I. to 5 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.100,000 was also reduced to Rs.50,000.

When three prosecution witnesses had been examined, accused recorded his statement wherein he pleaded guilty to the charge, and left himself at the mercy of the Trial Court requesting for taking lenient view against him

Trial Court, after recording the plea of guilt of accused, while taking lenient view, convicted and sentenced accused under S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to undergo imprisonment for ten months; and to pay a fine of Rs.5000, only with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

According to subsection (c) of S.9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, if the quantity of narcotic drug, would exceed one kilogram, then accused could be awarded sentence of death or imprisonment for life; or imprisonment for term which could extend to fourteen years and would also be liable to fine, which could be up to one million rupees

Said sentence had been squarely left at the discretion of the court, but main point was the judicious exercise of discretion in quantum of sentence

Once, a person, involved in a criminal case, would plead guilty, and placed himself at the mercy of the court, in that eventuality he would become a friend of the court, and the court always took lenient view in respect of his sentence

Extent of such leniency in awarding sentence considering accused as friend of the court, should not be such so as to frustrate the ends of justice and affect the society

Such leniency should be based on judicious scale, keeping in view over all impacts of the crime; because any extraordinary leniency towards accused in the offences, particularly, affecting the society at large could increase the ratio of crimes tremendously

In the present case, huge quantity of 3 kilograms heroin had been recovered

Heroin had not been separated from other narcotics, in Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, keeping in view its severe impact on human body, as it caused many short term and long term affects on the human body

Addicts of heroin lying in streets and footpaths adding more to the agonies of their poor parents, who were already grinding in poverty

Impact of heroin, was more serious as compared to other narcotics

Offenders dealing in the despicable business of heroin, who were enemies of the entire nation, were required to be dealt with an iron hand

Trial Court, while awarding less sentence to accused taking lenient view, had not exercised its discretion judiciously, keeping in view the perilous effect of heroin over the society, and had extended undue leniency to accused

If exercise of such extraordinary leniency shown by the Trial Court was allowed to prevail, it would increase the smuggling of narcotics; and every accused after arrest would try to become friend of the court; and after getting leniency, would again indulge in the shameful business, which would frustrate the ends of justice and shatter the future of the nation

Sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was enhanced from ten months' S.I. to 20 months' R.I., and fine from Rs.5000 to 10,000

Benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to accused.

Accused was sitting in the Motorcar in question at the time of his arrest on the spot, and huge quantity of narcotics, were recovered from the rear doors, as well as trunk of the same

Samples separated from the lot, were sent to the Laboratory and report of Chemical Examiner, was positive

Punishment for the offence, fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Section 51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, provided that bail would not be granted to an accused charged with an offence under that Act, or under any other law relating to narcotics, where the offence was punishable with death

When the quantity of narcotics would exceed one Kilogram, case would fall in clause (c) of S.9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for which death penalty or imprisonment for life had been provided

Discretion under S.497, Cr.P.C., could also not be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, unless the court at the very outset was satisfied that such a charge appeared to be false and groundless

Larger interest of the public, and State demanded that in case of huge recovery of narcotics, the discretion under S.497, Cr.P.C., should not be exercised liberally

Deeper appreciation of the record at bail stage, could not be gone into, but only it was to be seen as to whether accused was prima facie connected with the commission of the offence or not.

Complainant, separated samples weighing 5 grams from each of the 16 recovered packets, which were sealed on the spot in the presence of marginal witnesses to the recovery memo, and remaining "charas" was also sealed separately on the spot in the same manner

Samples were dispatched to Forensic Science Laboratory, wherefrom report was received in the affirmative, thereby confirming recovery of "charas" from possession of accused and co-accused

Said facts were further re-inforced by complainant, marginal witnesses, Investigating Officer and formal witnesses in their statements before the court

Testimony of such witnesses could not be seriously challenged despite searching cross-examination by the defence

Special Court, had overwhelming evidence before it to hold accused guilty of the charge and convict and sentence him to imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs.50,000

Said judgment of Special Court was upheld.

Accused persons, who were in jail since 11-11-2015, for alleged recovery of total 2400 grams of "charas", were no more required for investigation or interrogation purposes

No prospect was available of the commencement of trial of accused persons in near future

No strong reason existed to withhold the concession of bail, when speedy trial was indefeasible right of accused persons

Mere heinousness of crime, would not disentitle accused from the concession of bail

Accused were directed to be released on bail, in circumstances.

Three accused persons, separately disclosed and pointed out the presence of narcotic i.e. charas garda hidden in both sides of bus in question

94,800 Kgs charas in 79 packets, was recovered from the bus

10/10 grams from each packet of charas, were separated for Forensic Science Laboratory examination, while remaining packets were sealed into four plastic sacks

Presence of accused persons in the bus at their respective position, stood amply established

During personal search of one of accused persons, registration book of the bus in question and a stamp paper regarding purchase of bus was recovered

Separation of samples of 10 grams from each of 79 packets, its handing over by the complainant to prosecution witness, its safe custody in the Malkhana; and its onward delivery to constable to be taken to Forensic Science Laboratory, was not challenged by accused persons

Positive Forensic Science Laboratory's report, put a final seal on the recovered contraband to be charas garda

Presence of accused persons in the vehicle stood fully established

Prosecution witnesses in one voice stated about the recovery of huge quantity of narcotics, from the bus

Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was a special law, and it had been specially provided in its S.29 that presumption of recovery of contraband items was always deemed to be from accused, unless it was proved to the contrary

Except for minor and negligible contradictions, which did not strike at the roots of the prosecution version, case stood proved against accused persons to the hilt, leaving no room to doubt the veracity of the statements of prosecution witnesses

Prosecution witnesses, were not at all questioned about any previous ill-will or animous with accused persons, whereby accused could have been substituted with so-called other accused

Mere denial of the charge by accused and pleading innocence, without substantiating the same through cogent and convincing evidence in the face of a strong prosecution case, could not earn them acquittal

Prosecution case stood fully proved against accused persons, Trial Court had recorded a proper and well reasoned judgment according to law and evidence available on the record

Such findings did not suffer from any illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence, which could in turn call for interference in appeal.

Prosecution could succeed only if it was able to prove that all three samples drawn from three packets of heroin said to have been possessed by accused, on analysis, were found to contain heroin

Three parcels were received in the office of Chemical Examiner, but at the back of the report of Chemical Examiner, only one sample was mentioned

Police constable, who had deposited the sealed parcels to the office of the Chemical Examiner, had deposed that "perhaps the parcels of another case were also handed over to me at the same time by the Moharrar; that I do not remember, if the said parcels were also of heroin or not"

Said deposition of Police constable, had created doubt about the sample analyzed

Unless the prosecution was able to show that the sample which was analyzed by the Chemical Examiner, was the very same sample which was drawn from the contraband heroin, could not be relied upon

Prosecution had failed to prove that the sample fetched from the contraband was the same sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis

Report of Chemical Examiner could not be relied upon as material evidence against accused

Judgment passed by Special Court, was set aside

Accused who was on bail, his bail bonds were discharged, in circumstances.

Both said witnesses gave detailed pen-picture of the process of recovery of huge quantity of narcotic substance from the possession of accused

Said prosecution witnesses were tested on the parameters of lengthy cross-examination, but they remained coherent on salient features and nothing could be brought on record in favour of accused

Neither the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer was challenged, nor a single circumstance was brought on record to substantiate that the prosecution witnesses had previous ill-will against accused persons

Prosecution had successfully established its case against accused

Defence version, could not be substantiated through any independent circumstance

Trial Court, in view of overwhelming material brought on record was justified in recording conviction against accused persons under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Contraband narcotic substance recovered from accused which consisted charas was not lethal as heroin

Accused was first offender and there was no previous record of the nature to his credit

Charas recovered being of lesser gravity and magnitude, as compared to heroin, infliction of sentence of imprisonment for life, would be sufficient to meet the dictates of justice

Death sentence awarded to accused, was converted into imprisonment for life

Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., was also extended to accused.

Even assuming that another view could be taken against accused in respect of the charge, that could not be ground to set aside an order of acquittal

In order to succeed, the State must show that the findings recorded by the Trial Court, could effectively be dislodged; and such findings were unwarranted

Said marginal witness of recovery memo, had furnished ocular account of alleged recovery, whereas during the cross-examination he denied his presence at the time of alleged recovery and arrest of accused

Evidence of the witness had left the impression that alleged recovery of narcotic substance was not recovered in his presence from the possession of accused; and that he had, later, on come to know that alleged narcotic was recovered from the accused

Said witness had himself laid the foundation for disbelieving him

Prosecution had offered no explanation for non-citing name of important witness, a lady constable, who searched accused

No effort was made by the prosecution to join the lady constable in the investigation to bring the witness as prosecution witness

Evidence of the lady constable, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, was 'material' for the purpose of the case

Court was entitled to draw an adverse inference as provided in Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984; and came to the conclusion that said witness had been purposely not cited in calendar of the witnesses, because, if produced, it would have been totally unfavourable to the prosecution version

Star witness did not support the prosecution case

Prosecution had failed to bring home the charge against accused to convict her for the commission of alleged offence

No probability existed that accused would be convicted of the offence charged for appeal against acquittal of accused being without merit, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused had assailed the order of the Trial Court, whereby request of accused for de-sealing/opening the parcel of the case property, was turned down

Accused, was allegedly burdened with the allegation of possessing the huge quantity of narcotics; and charge against him was one of capital punishment

Entire case property produced in the court, must be opened in the court, so that the witnesses; and other concerned, could see the same

Trial Court, without opening the sealed parcel, had illegally exhibited the case property, without showing it to the witnesses

Observation of the Trial Court was based on presumption

Trial Court by not opening the case property, even on repeated request of the defence Counsel, had strangulated the fair trial, which was a vested right of accused

Refusal to expose the case property in the open court, was even against the mandate of Art.10-A of the Constitution, which enshrined the fair trial

Trial Court, without any lawful justification, could not decide the case on presumption and surmises

Prosecution was to produce the case property in the court; and get it exhibited

Court was directed to open/de-seal the case property in the open court, so that the witnesses; and other concerned, could see the same in the open court; and accused or his counsel, could cross-examine the recovery witness in accordance, with law

Appeal was accepted and Trial Court was directed to open/de-seal the case property in the open court accordingly.