Possessing and trafficking of narcotics

Four persons who were convicted under S. 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 sought suspension of their sentences

Validity

Admittedly, one of the lady accused at the time of her arrest was accompanied by one minor daughter; she was pregnant of 28 weeks and during captivity gave birth to a male child; second lady accused was accompanied by two daughters at the time of her arrest; third lady accused, as per her counsel, was old and infirm

Accused ladies were only sentenced for five years, which was a short sentence and there was no likelihood of appeal being taken up in near future

So far as male accused was concerned, perusal of facts and judgment led to the conclusion that judgment on the face of it, did not suffer from any legal error

Petition for suspension of sentence was partially allowed to the extent of all three lady accused, their conviction and sentence was suspended till final adjudication of appeal

Prayer of male accused for suspension of sentence was declined.

Article 10-A, of the Constitution had provided the right of a fair trial and due process to accused which included his right to be represented by a counsel of his own choice or at least a counsel in order to protect his rights especially when the offence was of a capital nature

Most accused persons were laymen who had little, if any, knowledge of the law and in the absence of defense counsel they were unable to adequately defend themselves

For example, during the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness the accused would not know which questions he could object to and which documents he could oppose being exhibited

Such inability on accused's part would lead to an unfair trial

Onus was on the Trial Court to ensure that an accused, in a trial of an offence carrying capital sentence, was represented by defence counsel throughout even if it was pauper counsel appointed by the court at State expense in order to protect his rights and ensure that he received a fair trial

Case was remanded to the Trial Court for recording the evidence afresh

Appeal was disposed of, accordingly.

Rules 4 and 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 did not place any bar on investigating officer to send samples beyond seventy two hours of seizure of substance

Such rules were directory and not mandatory and could not control substantive provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Rules were to be applied in such a manner that their operation did not frustrate the purpose of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Failure to follow said rules did not render seizure of the alleged substance as absolute nullity

Bail was declined.

Plea of the accused persons was that their case fell within the borderline of subsection (b) & (c) of S. 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Validity

'Charas' recovered from accused persons exceeded one kilogram

Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997 had enshrined the figure upto one kilogram, which could not be twisted by a court of law

According to S.51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 no bail could be granted in respect of offences committed under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and provisions of Ss. 496 & 497, Cr.P.C. had been excluded

Elbow room was, however, left at the discretion of the court under subsection (2) of S.51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 where statute had laid down that bail should not normally be granted unless court was of the opinion that case was fit for grant of bail

Words "fit case for grant of bail" used in Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 depended on facts of an individual case and required circumstances favourable to accused

Grant of bail was refused.

Accused was neither shown as owner of vehicle in question, nor driving license had been recovered from him at the time of his arrest, when he was allegedly occupying the driving seat

Role assigned to accused was similar to two co-accused, who had already been released on bail

Role of accused would also be subject to further inquiry making accused entitled to the concession of bail

Mere presence of accused on the driving seat would not, prima facie, establish his involvement or his conscious knowledge regarding presence of narcotics in the vehicle in question

Accused was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Female accused, who was in jail since 30-1-2018 for the alleged recovery of narcotic, was no more required for investigation

No prospect of commencement of trial in near future existed

No strong reason was found to withhold the concession of bail to accused

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

Contention was that in the FIR, charas recovered was 'garda', but the Forensic Science Laboratory report showed the same as 'solid brown', such report could not be looked into at bail stage

Charas 'garda', for all practical purposes, is in semi solid raw form and after going through some baking process, it turns into charas 'Pukhta' and that was how the report had shown 'charas garda' as 'brown solid'

Both the tests were in affirmative; in view of recovery of huge quantity of charas weighing 12 Kgs from the personal possession of accused and the report in respect thereof being in affirmative accused was prima facie connected with the commission of the offence, which squarely fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., holding accused disentitled to bail

Petition for bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Trial Court dismissed the application by holding that partnership of late husband of the appellant with the accused could not be ruled out

Validity

Record showed that there was no rival claimant of the vehicle

Contraband were recovered from the vehicle along with a receipt from Rent-A-Car office, owned by the late husband of the appellant, which showed that accused had hired the vehicle for self driving which fact proved that the vehicle belonged to Rent-A-Car office

Previous owner of the vehicle appeared as court witness and deposed about sale of vehicle by the husband of appellant

Evidence suggested that the cavity from where the narcotic was recovered was not specially created in the vehicle

Declining request of the appellant for return of the vehicle was beyond jurisdiction of the Trial Court

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Accused who was in the Police custody in connection with a previously registered criminal case, allegedly led to the recovery of 2 Kilograms of charas from his house

According to the S.20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, search of a building, about which there were reasons to believe that narcotic drug, psychotropic substances, were being kept, was to be conducted under a warrant of search to be issued by the Special Court

Requirement of search warrant, could only be relaxed in circumstances mentioned in S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Accused being already in custody of Police in a previously registered criminal case, there was no possibility of the concealment or the removal of charas

Investigating Officer, in circumstances, should have obtained a search warrant in accordance with S.20 of the said Act

Said omission provided a valid ground for the grant of bail to the accused

No evidence was available on record to connect the accused with the house from where the recovery was made which aspect reasonably attracted the provisions of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Case against accused being of further inquiry, he was admitted to post arrest bail in circumstances.

Alleged recovered charas was sent to the Chemical Examiner two days after its recovery and prosecution had failed to produce any entry of Malkhana as well as statement of incharge thereof in order to establish its safe custody

Despite the fact that case was of prior information, the complainant had admitted that neither he asked any private person to associate as mashir to witness the recovery proceedings, nor he tried so, though there were so many people available at the place

Evidence produced by the prosecution, was not reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring and there were material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

Delay of two days in sending samples of charas to Chemical Examiner could not be ignored

Report of Chemical Examiner, was also not in accordance with prescribed rules

Material contradictions were noticed in the evidence of the complainant and mashir which could not be relied upon

Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, extending benefit of doubt to accused, impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside and accused was ordered to be released forthwith.

Section 51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had provided that bail was not available in cases where the death sentence could be awarded

Accused had been challaned under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Massive amount of charas (69.6 Kg) had been recovered from accused, which potentially could lead to death penalty or life sentence

Sufficient material was available on record to connect accused to the offence for which he had been charged

All the prosecution witnesses, had supported the prosecution case

Recovery was made from accused on the spot with positive chemical report

Accused hailed from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, the possibility of his absconsion, if he was granted bail, could not be ruled out

Accused was third time involved in the case, which suggested that he was a hardened criminal

Drug dealing, being a heinous crime against society, possibility of capital punishment existed

High Court observed that prolonged delay in conclusion of the trial, was condemnable in the strongest possible terms

Matter could be dealt with by issuing a further direction to the Trial Court to complete the trial within a given period

Bail application was dismissed and the Trial Court was directed to hear the matter on a day to day basis and complete the trial within three months.

Complainant did not associate any private person to witness the recovery proceedings though he had sufficient time to collect and associate an independent person to act as Mashir in the case

Overwriting was noticed in the Mashirnama of arrest and recovery in respect of date of incident; some writing over the Roznamcha entry No.3 had also been noticed

Recovered charas was sent to the Chemical Examiner one day after its recovery

Prosecution, neither produced any entry of Malkhana nor examined Head Moharrar of Malkhana in respect of safe custody of narcotic

Person by whom sample was sent to chemical examiner was not examined

Trial Court overlooked all the material aspects of the case

Prosecution case was full of discrepancies, lacunas, contradictions and against the settled principles

Several circumstances existed in the case which had created doubt in the prosecution story

Prosecution had not discharged its liabilities

Benefit of doubt was extended to accused and conviction and sentence awarded to him were set aside and he was ordered to be released forthwith.

Where the prosecution prima facie proved recovery from accused, the court was required to presume that accused was guilty, unless he proved that he was not in possession of such drugs

Burden then would be upon the accused to establish his innocence and absolve himself from the allegations regarding recovery of narcotic substances; while the prosecution had only to show by evidence that accused was in custody or directly concerned with recovered narcotic substance

Recovered charas from the secret cavities of truck, stood established, hence it was the turn of accused persons to prove the contrary

Without such proof, accused would be held guilty by virtue of S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

Specimen from each packet was separated for chemical analysis and a separate parcel of 500 grams was sealed for chemical analysis

Accused persons were arrested on the spot with recovered contraband substance

Sending the recovered contraband item with delay of beyond the period of 72 hours, would not vitiate the trial

Contradictions in the statements of prosecution, though were always fatal to the prosecution case, but a distinction was to be made between minor inconsistencies or variance in the testimony of witness from the contradictions in the evidence

Only such statements would be termed as contradictory which were either destructive of each other or were totally different to the extent that two versions could not be reconciled

Minor discrepancies in the present case, were not of such nature

Alleged contraband was recovered from the secret cavities of the car; driver could not be absolved from the responsibility, as he being the driver would have knowledge about the prohibited substance secretly concealed in the car

Knowledge and the conscious possession of both accused persons, could not be ruled out in presence of un-impeachable prosecution evidence

Co-accused was rightly held responsible for committing the offence, charged against him

Ocular testimony, recovery of substance, positive Forensic Science Laboratory report, had fully proved case against accused persons

Accused persons, could not establish that they were substituted

Prosecution successfully proved its case against the accused persons without shadow of doubt, no interference was required by High Court

Impugned judgment passed by Special Judge for narcotics, was upheld, and appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Specimen from each packet was separated for chemical analysis and a separate parcel of 500 grams was sealed for chemical analysis

Accused persons were arrested on the spot with recovered contraband substance

Sending the recovered contraband item with delay of beyond the period of 72 hours, would not vitiate the trial

Contradictions in the statements of prosecution, though were always fatal to the prosecution case, but a distinction was to be made between minor inconsistencies or variance in the testimony of witness from the contradictions in the evidence

Only such statements would be termed as contradictory which were either destructive of each other or were totally different to the extent that two versions could not be reconciled

Minor discrepancies in the present case, were not of such nature

Alleged contraband was recovered from the secret cavities of the car; driver could not be absolved from the responsibility, as he being the driver would have knowledge about the prohibited substance secretly concealed in the car

Knowledge and the conscious possession of both accused persons, could not be ruled out in presence of un-impeachable prosecution evidence

Co-accused was rightly held responsible for committing the offence, charged against him

Ocular testimony, recovery of substance, positive Forensic Science Laboratory report, had fully proved case against accused persons

Accused persons, could not establish that they were substituted

Prosecution successfully proved its case against the accused persons without shadow of doubt, no interference was required by High Court

Impugned judgment passed by Special Judge for narcotics, was upheld, and appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Record though did not show that nine pieces of charas were recovered from the possession of accused, but Chemical Examiner had mentioned that nine pieces of charas were examined by him

Recovered charas was also not weighed at the spot and total weight was mentioned approximately, which required serious consideration

Investigation had already been completed, and accused was no more required for investigation

Bail could not be withheld as matter of punishment

Trial could not be concluded within time, due to non-production of under trial prisoner and non-availability of witnesses

After lapse of six months not a single witness had been examined by the prosecution

Complainant, despite prior information neither associated any independent witness, nor he made any serious efforts to hire public person to maintain the transparency of recovery

Accused being a lady of old age was entitled for concession of bail

Accused had made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry, she was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Case of the prosecution rested upon the evidence of the Police Officials, their evidence required thorough scrutiny at the time of trial; and there was no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence at the hands of accused

Five hundred grams charas, having allegedly been recovered from possession of accused, accused was liable to be tried under S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which did not fall within the prohibition contained in S.51 of the Act

Accused was previous non-convict and it was yet to be determined at the trial whether accused had committed the offence in a manner as alleged by prosecution or otherwise, till then case of accused required further probe

Accused having not been convicted in any case allegedly registered against him, he could not be refused bail mainly on the ground that certain other criminal cases had been registered against him

Accused having made out a case for further inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Accused contended, that since complainant was the Investigating Officer of the case; serious prejudice had been caused to accused, and conviction awarded to him was illegal

Validity

Law, did not stipulate any prohibition on the Police Officer to become Investigating Officer, and complainant of the case, if he was a witness to certain facts, unless his interest was shown to be obvious in falsely implicating accused

Accused, was unable to point out any prejudice caused to him, just because the complainant investigated the matter

No enmity with the said witness had been suggested by the defence

Personal interest of the complainant to rope accused falsely, was not the case of defence

Dual capacity performed by the Police Officer as complainant and Investigating Officer, in the present case, did not appear to have influenced and manipulated the manner and result, of the investigation, because, no material, had been brought on record by the defence to suggest false implication of accused at the hands of the complainant.

Writing of joint or a separate memo, had never been considered as an absolute requirement of law to be followed at every cost

Law would only require identification of each item distinctively and independently in the memo. of recovery to fend off any chance of vagueness, or confusion in the trial

Such was the rule of convenience favouring the prosecution to present its case unambiguously before the court, or at times to be used for the benefit of accused, if the memo. lacked the necessary details to recognize each incriminating article properly against accused from whom it was alleged to have been recovered

Even a separate memo. wanting in necessary particulars in respect of a recovered article, could not be considered to have furnished sufficient incriminating evidence, warranting conviction of accused

Issue, in the context, would not be of writing a joint or separate memo. of arrest and recovery at the spot but in case of a joint recovery from either one or more than one accused, it was the requirement of law pertaining to clear, explicit and precise particulars relating to each incriminating article so that the cause of justice could be served adequately to the satisfaction of all concerned

Joint memo regarding more than one incriminating articles punishable under different and separate penal laws, either recovered from one accused or more than one arrested simultaneously, would be admissible in evidence and could be safely relied upon, and it would not be fatal to the prosecution case, if it precisely mentioned the recovery of each illegal article against the specific accused from where it was effected explicitly.

Chief Court had passed the order whereby the Trial Court was directed to return the challan, if the same was presented by the local Police and Anti-Narcotic Force was directed to re-open the investigation

Advocate-General contended that Ss. 21 & 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had empowered the Police to take cognizance of the said offence and to investigate the same; that investigation conducted by the Police could not be questioned; that Chief court fell in error by directing the Anti-Narcotic Force for re-opening the investigation of the case and that the investigation of the said case had already been conducted by the local Police and nothing remained for re-investigation in that case

Validity

Police Officer, in pursuance of S.R.O. No.656(I)/2004, dated 20-08-2004, had powers to take cognizance and investigate the offence falling under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Order passed by the Chief Court was set aside by the Supreme Appellate Court and case was remitted to the Special Judge for trial of the accused

Trial Court was directed to hear and decide the case expeditiously within a period of six months.

Prosecution witness, who claimed ownership of said house which was given on rent to accused, neither was witness of recovery nor in possession of written rent deed

No independent witness was associated at the time of alleged recovery of narcotics

All witnesses, except one, were Police Officials

No search warrant was obtained in compliance with mandatory legal provision, neither witnesses were accompanied at the time of recovery in compliance with the provision of S.103, Cr.P.C.

Testimony of witnesses in the case was to be accepted with great care and caution

Material contradiction existed in the statements of prosecution witnesses

Glaring material contradiction was also noticed with regard to the nature of 'charas', which was shown "gardha" in the FIR, but complainant himself contradicted by admitting that recovered contraband was in different solid pieces

Such admission on the part of the complainant/Seizing Officer would create serious doubt about the nature of 'charas' recovered; and the sample separated therefrom

Complainant admitted that inmates of the house were present at the time of raid and alleged recovery of "charas", but statement of none of them was recorded

Material discrepancies in the case of prosecution, together with the admitted factum of delay in sending the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory had created serious dent in the prosecution case against accused

Prosecution having not been able to bring home charge against accused, accused could not be convicted and sentenced for offence under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Impugned judgment of the Special Court, was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge and was set at liberty.

Ocular testimony of the complainant, was subjected to extensive cross-examination by accused, but complainant stuck to his stance

Complainant had fully proved that 8 packets of charas weighing 10 Kgs. had been recovered from the secret cavities made in the floor of motor car which was in exclusive possession of accused

Prosecution witnesses firmly supported stance of the complainant

Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, duly signed by Chemical Expert and Assistant Chemical Examiner, with regard to contraband charas was positive, which fully proved stance of the complainant

Barring minor and negligible contradictions, did not strike at the roots of the prosecution case

Being the driver of car from where charas was recovered, accused was overall incharge of the car, he could not plead or feign ignorance about the contraband charas hidden in the secret cavities of the car

No previous ill-will or animus of accused was established with the prosecution witnesses, whereby he could have been falsely nabbed and charged for the possession of the contraband charas

Not only the recovery of the charas from the motor car stood proved, but also the separation of the sample, its sending to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the affirmation report

Mere denial of charge and pleading of innocence without substantiating the same through cogent evidence, would not be sufficient to earn him acquittal

Prosecution case stood fully proved against accused to the hilt; and Trial Court had recorded well reasoned judgment after proper application of mind

Impugned judgment, which did not suffer from any illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence would not be interfered with in appeal.

Veracity of the allegation against accused was not doubtful, as counsel of accused, had frankly conceded that, conviction had been correctly made by Trial Court; and there was nothing wrong with the same

Prosecution had successfully proved the possession of narcotics substance from accused

Conviction of accused was sustained

Prosecution had not agitated at any stage that accused was a previous convict; or he bore a nasty character, spotted with ugly allegation alike

Enigmatic abandoning of co-passengers of accused by the prosecution, was a crucial circumstance, which needed to be looked at with doubt, as to the award of capital punishment to accused

Accused's maiden involvement in such like offence could be considered a mitigating circumstance with regard to quantum of sentence

Extreme penalty of death would be too harsh to be inflicted on accused

Accused, did not have any previous criminal antecedent, so had to be believed the first offender

Death sentence of accused, was converted into imprisonment for life, in circumstances.

Prosecution had neither established safe custody of recovered substance, nor had produced the constable as witness to establish that complainant/Inspector handed over to him recovered substance and that accused were sent to Police Station

Complainant/Police Inspector in his statement in the court, had deposed that he sent both parcel and accused to Police Station, but other Police Officials gave inconsistent and contradictory statements

Said inconsistencies and contradictions led to an irresistible inference that the prosecution had not been able to prove safe custody of the recovered substance through material and cogent evidence

Samples, in the case had been tampered and variation had been found in the weight of alleged recovered substance

Lacuna existed in the evidence produced by the prosecution to prove that recovered substance (Poppy straw) was deposited in Malkhana and same was not tampered with

Alleged recovered substance, was shrouded in mystery and remained unexplained as to what was recovered from the possession of accused

Strong doubt existed as to whether the sample analyzed by the Chemical Examiner was taken out of same material that was allegedly recovered from accused at the time of raid

Said discrepancy had created a reasonable doubt with respect to the link evidence produced on behalf of prosecution

Alleged contraband was not weighed at the spot

In the light of numerous contradictions, in the conduct of prosecution witnesses, their testimony failed to inspire confidence

Prosecution had not been able to prove the charge levelled against accused

In view of inherent illegality in the matter, conviction of accused was set aside; he was acquitted of the charge, and was directed to be released.

Case property, charas and garda charas, was duly exhibited in the evidence of two prosecution witnesses, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo

Both said witnesses remained consistent and firm on all the material aspects of the recovery

Said witnesses, had given each and every detail with regard to the recovery proceedings

Both said witnesses, were cross-examined at considerable length, but nothing could be extracted, which could adversely affect the prosecution case

Tenor of cross-examination reflected that the defence had not seriously challenged the recovery of charas and garda charas from the vehicle

Mainstay of the defence was that accused, being the driver, had no conscious knowledge about the concealment of recovered substance in the vehicle and that he was made scapegoat in place of actual culprits

Said contention of accused, was negated by the statement of SHO, who during his cross-examination had stated that he recovered that material from the car on the pointation of accused

Absence of mens rea, also did not find support from the manner in which the recovery was effected

Case of the prosecution right from the day one was that when the vehicle in question was signaled to stop, the driver accelerated the same, and after a chase, vehicle was stopped by the Patrolling Police

Prosecution, while examining prosecution witnesses, had successfully discharged the burden of proof

Case property was produced before the Trial Court and there was no serious challenge to the same from the other side

Report of Chemical Examiner, tendered in evidence, affirmed the nature of recovered substance being a narcotic drug, attracting the penal provisions contained in S.9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Accused who had taken a specific plea in his defence, was found to lead cogent and convincing evidence to prove the same, but, defence plea was self-contradictory

Accused, could not prove that case against him was registered due to any enmity

Defence plea was as crafted one, which was self-destructive

No evidence, was led by accused to prove that he was falsely involved in the present case

Substitution in criminal case was always a rare phenomenon and foisting a huge quantity, weighing 35 Kg and 625 grams, was also improbable, where there was no animosity of the Police with accused

Prosecution had produced all the material witnesses in order to bring home the guilt of accused

Non-examination of Inspector, was not fatal to the prosecution case, as the prosecution was not bound to examine each and every witness cited in the calendar with the report under S.173, Cr.P.C.

Prosecution had the prerogative to examine the witnesses as per its own choice as the evidentiary value of the witnesses was to be determined on the basis of quality and not quantity

Facts and circumstances, always vary from case to case

Accused being the driver, was in control of the vehicle

Recovery of charas and garda charas was effected from different compartments of the car, including the driving seat

From the available evidence, it could easily be gathered that accused was fully aware of the presence of charas and garda charas in the car, especially when he failed to rebut the overwhelming evidence led by prosecution

No bar existed under the law for Police Officer to be complainant as well as Investigating Officer at the same time

Where no prejudice was caused to accused, then functioning of complainant in his dual capacity was neither illegal nor unlawful

Contention that when on the basis of same set of evidence, co-accused were acquitted, accused could not be convicted, was repelled, as the acquitted accused were neither arrested at the spot nor their identification was established on the record

Case of other accused persons was entirely on different footings, whereas accused being the driver was arrested at the spot and led to the recovery

Even otherwise principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus", was not strictly applicable in criminal system of dispensation of justice as in the peculiar circumstances, the grain was to be sifted from the chaff

Prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused without any shadow of doubt by leading cogent and trustworthy evidence

Trial Court had duly appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly convicted accused by way of judgment under challenge

Trial Court had committed no illegality while convicting accused

Accused had failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity, requiring interference by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction

While maintaining the conviction of accused recorded by the Trial Court, appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Sentence awarded to accused, was short one, and disposal of main appeal would take some time as paper book had not been prepared by the office

Considering the quantum of backlog of the case, there was no probability for early hearing of the appeal

Sentence awarded to accused was suspended during pendency of main appeal, and accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Evidence of complainant/Police Inspector and another Police Officer, regarding weight and recovery of narcotics, was contradictory, which was enough for extending benefit of doubt to accused persons

Complainant/ Police Inspector, had failed to associate private person to act as mashir of arrest and recovery, though some houses were near the place of recovery and arrest

Complainant, despite having sufficient time to call the private persons for making them as mashir in the case, failed to do so

Such omission had not been explained by prosecution to the satisfaction of the court

Evidence of Police Official though was as good as other witnesses, but, when availability of private persons, was not denied from the place of incident, and the same was withheld, presumption would be existed that the prosecution had some sinister motive behind it in not producing the evidence

Best independent and natural piece of evidence in the shape of cart pusher purchasing old scrap, was available; charas was weighed by his scale and he resided near the place of incident, he was not examined by the prosecution

No reason had been assigned for non-examination of such an important and best piece of evidence, which had created reasonable doubt about the prosecution case which led to adverse inference against the prosecution

Benefit of doubt, created by many discrepancies in the case, must go to accused persons

Prosecution having failed to prove the case against accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt, impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court against accused persons, was set aside and they were acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Said witnesses, had been cross-examined at considerable length, but no discrepancy causing reasonable doubt in the veracity of prosecution case was found

Evidence of prosecution witnesses, over the recovery of narcotic substance from the house in question had not been shattered to such extent that conviction and sentence awarded to accused, could be declared illegal and set aside

Minor variations, though did occur in the evidence of witnesses, but no contradictions worth giving benefit of reasonable doubt to accused existed

Plea of false implication of accused at the instance of DSP, against whom accused had moved application for registration of FIRs, could not be given much weight, as said DSP was neither the witness, nor had conducted any investigation in the case

Said DSP had not played any part to contrive things against accused

Nothing concrete to suggest false implication of accused at the hands of said DSP, was found on record

SHO concerned had submitted criminal record of showing as many as 20 criminal cases of different kinds registered at various Police Stations against accused and his brothers

Objection of accused over the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station to register the case against accused, was also without any merits

Accused was aware of the nature, and exact time and date of incident reported against him

Stringent compliance of S.103, Cr.P.C., had been dispensed with in terms of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

People fearing for their life, did not come forward to give evidence against drug barons

Information disclosed by accused led to discovery of narcotic substance, was relevant as per scheme of Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and could be relied upon

Prosecution case was about recovery of 7 packets of charas, each having rods and each weighing 1250 grams

Out of those 7 packets, one packet individually consisting 100 rods, was separated, sealed and subsequently sent for examination to Chemical Expert, the report of which had come in positive

Regarding 6 remaining packets, the prosecution could not bring any evidence to establish the same to be narcotic substance punishable under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Prosecution was bound to take sample from every packet for examination to prove it to be narcotic substance

Accused, was liable for possessing 1250 grams of charas and 1000 grams of heroin

Conviction and sentence for possessing charas exceeding 1 Kilogram and upto 2 Kilograms was R.I. for 4 years, 6 months, and fine of Rs.20,000 in default S.I. for 6 months, and for possessing heroin exceeding 600 grams and upto 1000 grams, the sentence of R.I. for one year, 10 months and fine of Rs. 150,000 in default S.I. for 5 months

Same punishment for accused, would meet the ends of justice

Accused had served sentence of 6 years, 11 months and 14 days, and had earned remission of 2 years, 1 month and 19 days

Conviction and sentence of 10 years and fine of Rs.500,000 awarded to accused, was modified to the period already undergone by him, in circumstances.

Accused persons were arrested from a thickly populated area with prior spy information, but no efforts were made by the complainant to fulfil the mandatory requirement of S.103, Cr.P.C., for securing presence of two respectable and independent persons of the locality to be the mashirs of recovery

Recovery memo showed discrepancies with the actual weight of charas alleged to have been recovered

Case, in circumstances, fell within S.497(2), Cr.P.C., which required further inquiry

Alleged recovery from either of accused, did not exceed one Kilogram, case of accused persons did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Final challan having been submitted by the prosecution with the Trial Court, accused were no longer required by the prosecution for further investigation

Accused were entitled to be enlarged on bail

Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Normal Police Station chalked FIR, charging accused persons for the offence of S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was a special law, which had provided special mechanism for investigation of the occurrence falling under said law

Attitude of normal Police Station, was patently in utter violation of said law

Chalking of FIR by normal Police Station in case falling under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, neither could be indemnified under S.156(2), Cr.P.C., nor was curable under S.537, Cr.P.C., as said section neither had provided for any indemnification, nor provided for any curing of such action of normal Police Station

Chief Court directed for re-opening of the investigation of the case by Anti-Narcotics Force, treating the FIR already chalked by Anti-Narcotics Force

Trial Court was directed for returning the challan; if same was presented by normal Police.

Prosecution witnesses being Police Officials, was not sufficient to disbelieve their evidence, in the present case, evidence of said witnesses, did not find support from medical evidence

Cases of narcotics, could rest only, if it was established that articles recovered were in fact, contraband articles and not otherwise

Status of the recovery, in narcotics matters, could only be determined through Chemical Examiner, and not on mere words of the prosecution

Where chemical report was negative, or was doubtful, conviction could not legally be sustained

Prosecution witness, who was Police Official, had stated that he had not written the date of seizure, place of recovery and type over the parcels

Mistaken date was typographical, and there was every possibility that property might have been foisted upon accused persons

Such aspect created reasonable doubt to the prudent mind and shattered credibility of the witnesses

Single dent in the prosecution case was sufficient to extend benefit of such dent in prosecution case and in favour of accused persons

Impugned judgment was not maintainable under the law, and same was liable to be set aside, in circumstances

Plea of prosecution that accused who was involved in various cases of narcotics, being habitual offender, inference could be drawn against him, was repelled because mere registration of criminal cases was not sufficient to hold one as guilty

First Information Report would not declare any body to be culprit, but it was the verdict of the court of law only which could do so

Accused was to be presumed innocent, until found guilty

Order accordingly.

Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. in the narcotic cases, having been excluded by virtue of provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, non-inclusion of any private witness was not serious defect to make the ground of bail

Mens rea of accused was to be gathered from deep appreciation of evidence, which was not permitted at bail stage

Case of accused did not fall within the prohibited clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. in circumstances

On five occasions, case was adjourned, either on the request of accused side or due to absence of defence counsel, delay in trial of case, in circumstances was also attributed to accused, which disentitled him to bail, even on the ground of alleged delay in trial

Bail application of accused, being devoid of merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Property was sent to the Chemical Examiner with the delay of three months and five days, and no plausible justification was available on record to show the reasons of said delay

Such aspect was sufficient to cause the dent in the prosecution case

Registration of F.I.R., two days prior to the incident, had indicated the enmity between Police Officials and accused party

False involvement of accused in circumstances, could not be ruled out

Contradictions pointed out by counsel for accused was an admitted fact

Single dent in prosecution case, was sufficient to acquit accused

Miscarriage of justice, could arise from acquittal of the guilty and no less from conviction of the innocent

Impugned judgment whereby the sentence was awarded, was set aside and accused was acquitted by extending him benefit of doubt.

Ocular account was submitted by three officials, and such account of the evidence had gone unshaken, despite said witnesses were subjected to the lengthy cross-examination

Entries appeared to have been produced to substantiate the movement of said officials, and report of chemical analyst had also been produced, which had established that the parcel sent to him was charas

Truck driven by one of accused persons, having been found to be loaded with contraband material, possession thereof could not be said that same was not to be with accused persons, who had been controlling the Truck

Not necessary that the driver should also be the owner of the vehicle, or that only owner of the vehicle was liable, and the driver could not be saddled with liability

Driver who was in actual possession of the vehicle and the material, was responsible; the owner of the truck could also be guilty in some cases, but not necessarily in every case

Officials were also good witnesses like others, and their evidence could not be brushed aside merely for the reason of their being officials; they could be disbelieved, if they were shown to be inimical, and interested

No animosity was alleged against the witnesses

In the absence of such motive, there was no reason to discard the testimony of the officials

Evidence having gone unshaken, mere delay in sending the sample could hardly be of any importance

Case against accused persons, having been proved, they were rightly convicted and sentenced.

Huge quantity of 5 Kilograms of charas, value of about Rs.2,00,000 was recovered from accused, and Police submitted incomplete challan for trial of accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Later on Police filed complete challan for trial of accused under Arts.3 & 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979

As heavy quantity of charas was allegedly recovered from accused, S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was appropriate law, which was attracted

Police malafidely exercised power of Anti-Narcotic Force and submitted incomplete challan under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 first, and then final challan under Arts.3 & 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, just to give benefit to accused, as offences under Arts.3 & 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Mala fide on the part of Police, was glaring in circumstances

Bail petition was refused by the Chief Court with directions to the Inspector General of Police for taking disciplinary action against SHO and Investigating Officer for the evident mala fide on their part in conducting the investigation of the case.

Sample from each piece should have been extracted, and same should have been sealed in separate parcel for chemical examination

If no sample was taken from any particular piece, or if different samples taken from different pieces were not sent separately for analysis to Chemical Examiner, same would not be a "representative sample"; and it would be unsafe to rely on mere word of mouth of the prosecution witnesses regarding the substances of which, no sample had been taken separately and sealed separately or tested being narcotic substance

Sample of five grams separated for chemical examination would be considered as extracted from one piece, which was considered to be 1/2 Kilogram, and only that 1/2 Kilogram, could have been considered against accused as recovered narcotics

Accused, could not have been convicted for the remaining 1/2 Kilogram charas

Conviction of accused awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was converted into S.9(b) of said Act; and sentence of accused was reduced from four years' R.I. to that of one year and six months' R.I.; and fine of Rs.20,000 was reduced to that of Rs.13,000 in circumstances.

Special court having confiscated the vehicle being involved in the crime, appellant had sought return of the same claiming to be last purchaser of vehicle in question

Appellant neither during investigation nor during trial, bothered to apply to the concerned quarters for return of the vehicle; and it was exactly after one year of the custody of the vehicle, that appellant applied for return of the same, and that too by filing appeal

Original owners had also not applied for return of vehicle and were not aggrieved of the impugned order of confiscation

When the vehicle was taken into possession, no registration book or valid documents were produced or recovered from accused, and neither same were exhibited during trial

Appeal claiming the return of vehicle in question being without any merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Recovery of huge quantity of narcotics was proved by direct ocular testimony of the recovery officer, further confirmed by marginal witness

Manner, mode and place of recovery of contraband from motor car driven by accused had been proved to the hilt by convincing prosecution evidence

Recovered contrabands were properly sent and received for chemical examination at Forensic Science Laboratory on the next day of its recovery and result thereof was also positive

All the witnesses were consistent regarding their testimony and corroborated each other on material particulars

No evidence in rebuttal had been brought on record by accused

Accused having been suffering from Hepatitis, Jail Authorities as well as Medical Officer, were directed to take his extraordinary care; and if needed, accused be periodically shifted to the hospital for medical treatment.

Nothing was on record as could even remotely suggest that the incriminating substance was either planted, or accused was falsely charged and there was no doubt as to the guilt of accused

Accused who was a young man, was sentenced to life imprisonment

Accused besides being a patient of Hepatitis-C was also a first offender, having no history of being involved in narcotics cases

Material available on record showed that the accused appeared to be a carrier

Role and conduct of accused, in circumstances, would call for lesser punishment

While maintaining conviction of accused, his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to ten years' R.I., by leaving the fine and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., intact.

Both Station House Officer of Police Station, the seizing officer and prosecution witness, who were marginal witness of the recovery memo being star witnesses of the prosecution, had furnished the ocular account of the occurrence

Both had corroborated each other on all material particulars of the incident; such as the mode and manner of reaching of accused at the spot in the motorcar; its chase by the Police party; and recovery of narcotics from the same and had established their presence at the spot at the time of arrest of accused; and recovery from the vehicle driver

Said witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination, but their testimony could not be shattered on material aspects of the case

Chemical Analysis Report with regard to contraband, was positive

Burden of proving that accused were not in possession or knowledge of the contraband in the motor car, was upon accused persons, but they failed to appear and explain the same

Accused persons had furnished different versions regarding their travelling at the odd hours of night, which did not appeal to a prudent mind

Recovery of arms and ammunition from accused had further supplemented the story of prosecution

Plea of substitution and false implication, raised by accused was nothing, but merely an attempt to hide their own guilt

False, fabricated and afterthought defence version, had rightly been rejected by the Trial Court

Accused had failed to attract any circumstance to create doubt in the prosecution case qua his innocence

In view of huge quantity of 3 maunds of backed charas and its price which was in million, question of foisting the same against accused, did not appeal to a prudent mind

No evidence was available to show previous ill-will, grudge, enmity or rancour of accused persons with prosecution witnesses

Mere fact that witnesses were Police Officials, would not discard their testimony because Police Officials, were as good witnesses like others, and their testimony could be relied upon unless and until any enmity or ill-will was proved

No hard and fast rule existed that only private witness would speak the truth

Prosecution had fully proved its case against accused through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence

Trial Court which had properly appreciated the evidence on record, had rightly convicted and sentenced accused

Counsel for accused having failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, which could warrant interference, appeal against impugned judgment, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused who was behind the bars for the last eight and a half months, was not required by the prosecution side for further recovery or investigation

Witnesses were summoned, after framing charge in the case, but no prosecution witness was in attendance

After several adjournments two prosecution witnesses, who were Police Officials were present, but their statements could not be recorded as the Lawyers were observing strike on said date

Ever since the presentation of challan before the Trial Court, the trial was lingering on the basis of one pretext or the other, and the guilt of accused was yet to be determined

Prosecution was not pursuing the case vigilantly, and its witnesses were not in attendance before the Trial Court, which they otherwise ought to have bound under the law

Trial in the case was likely to consume a reasonable time

No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind bars for an indefinite period

Was yet to be determined by the Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties that alleged recovered substance was narcotic substance within the meaning of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Till that time case of accused was covered under S.51(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 calling for further inquiry into his guilt

Accused, was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Contention of counsel for accused persons regarding violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., had no force, because S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of the said provision of Cr.P.C., from the cases of narcotics

Place of recovery was not a public place, but was a house; there was no possibility of any private person to witness the proceedings specially during the night when occurrence took place

Directions given in Rr.4 & 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, were directory in nature and not mandatory at all, coupled with the fact that the same did not override the main statute

Seventy-seven kilograms charas and 13-1/2 kilograms opium were recovered from possession/at the behest of accused persons; and accused persons never contended that such a huge quantity of narcotics was not recovered from them

Samples, though were sent to the laboratory after 15 days of recovery of narcotics, but the defence could not prove that the samples were tampered with during that period

Delay in submission of samples to the laboratory, was not fatal to the prosecution case to initiate the conviction

Positive reports of the laboratory supported the prosecution case

Accused who was apprehended at the spot, disclosed that his brother/co-accused was also involved

Said co-accused was specifically nominated in the F.I.R.

Witnesses remained consistent with regard to place of recovery, recovery of narcotics and even the names of accused persons

Accused were notorious drug dealers having previous record

All said circumstances, fully involved accused persons with the commission of crime

No enmity, had been alleged against prosecution witnesses

No ground for false implication was alleged

Prosecution having successfully proved its case, and accused having rightly been convicted and sentenced, their appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Both complainant/Investigating Officer and other prosecution witness, had admitted that accused was just a carrier of donkey cart

Star witness of the prosecution, lent support to the defence version that accused was not having any knowledge, whether the luggage being carried by him in lieu of wages of Rs.300 was narcotics substance or something else

Trial Court despite holding that accused seemed to be a poor man and a cart driver, convicted and sentenced him

Case of accused was clearly that of acquittal, Trial Court ought not to have recorded conviction against him

Facts of the present case did not satisfy the provisions of S.6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Trial Court, in circumstances, was not justified while recording conviction of accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Judgment of the Trial Court was set aside, accused was acquitted of the charge and was ordered to be released, in circumstances.

Total 4 'pattis' (slabs) weighing 2 kilograms of charas lying in two packets were allegedly recovered from the accused but only 10 grams each from 2 packets were separated as sample for chemical examination leaving the remaining two 'pattis' in the packets

Positive report of Chemical Examiner received in respect of two samples which were taken out from two 'pattis' could not be considered at bail stage to have its connection with the alleged recovery of all the 4 'pattis'

Remaining two 'pattis' from which no samples were separated or sent for chemical examination was left for the Trial Court to determine the same and to such extent, the case needed further inquiry

Recovery of two 'pattis' the weight of which seemed to be one kilogram was covered by S. 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.

Bail was granted in circumstances.

Trial Court had not discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses given by them in cross-examination, but had drawn the conclusion that questions put to them being formal in nature, their evidence was uniform and consistent on material particulars of the case, and it stood unshattered

Trial Court while delivering the impugned judgment had not taken into consideration entire evidence

Extraordinary and abnormal delay of almost 7 months was taken in the delivery of sample to Chemical Examiner and it was not known as to why sample was kept at Police Station for such a long time

Major contradictions were noticed in the statement of the prosecution witnesses with regard to quantity of the seized narcotic

Arrest of accused was not made from the spot; and on the day of alleged incident, escape of accused on foot in presence of Police mobile, and in the morning light of the day, being unconvincing, conviction and sentence by the Trial Court, could not be maintained

Impugned judgment of the Trial Court was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge by extending him benefit of doubt, in circumstances.

Evidence of Police Officer, who was prosecution witness, and that of Mashir of the arrest and recovery, had supported the prosecution case on each and every material particular of the case

Evidence of said witnesses further got corroboration by Mashirnama, F.I.R. as well as positive chemical report available on record

Prosecution witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, but their evidence remained un-shattered

Nothing had been brought on record by accused to show any ill-will of prosecution witnesses against him

Few minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which were inconsequential in nature, were not enough to shatter the prosecution case

Evidence of Police Officials, were to be considered as of other witnesses within the probability of truth and belief in accordance with law, when nothing had been brought on record to show that Police witnesses had any ill-will or grudge against accused

Section 103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable to the proceedings under the provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Sample parcel though was dispatched for testing purpose after lapse of more than two months, but said delay, was not helpful to the accused, as evidence of witnesses of recovery of charas inspired confidence

In absence of any proof of tampering with the material, delay in sending samples to laboratory for chemical analysis was of no avail to accused

Sufficient material being available before the Trial Court in shape of unimpeachable ocular evidence coupled with Mashirnama of arrest and positive report of Chemical Examiner for establishing the guilt of accused for the alleged charge, Trial Court had rightly convicted accused

In absence of any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court calling for interference, High Court maintained said judgment with modification that as the alleged recovery was 1500 grams charas which was below 2 Kilograms, sentence provided against said recovery which was five years and fine of Rs.20,000, was modified and reduced to four years and six months' R.I. in circumstances.

F.I.R., challan and memo. of recovery reflected that 1050 grams of charas, consisting of 20 pieces of different sizes were recovered from accused; out of which 10 grams of charas was separated and sealed to be sent for Chemical Analysis

Exact weight of each piece of charas, recovered from accused was not identified, nor an attempt appeared to have been made by the complainant while preparing the relevant papers

Evidence qua sample was in conflict with the report sent by Chemical Examiner

Report of Chemical Examiner reflected that sample which was received by its office contained only one piece of charas, and same was in rod shape, which ruled out any possibility of different pieces of charas blended together with each other, either intentionally or not to make out one piece

Recovery of charas was 1050 grams containing 20 pieces of different sizes, by the principle of average, if 20 pieces of charas were equally divided, each piece would become in between the limits of 52 to 53 grams

Accused, in circumstances, would become only liable for 52/53 grams of charas from which sample appeared to have been taken

Prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of 1050 grams of charas from accused

Case of accused, in circumstances, did not come within the mischief of clause (c), but fell within the ambit of clause (a) to S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Accused had served his sentence for 11 months and 4 days, and had earned remission of 4 months and 15 days; his unexpired portion of sentence had been stated as 5 years, 8 months and 1 day with fine

By dismissing the appeal conviction and sentence awarded to accused were modified from S.9(c) to S.9(a) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and reduced the same to the period, accused had already undergone with fine of Rs.5000.

Statements of prosecution witnesses, focusing only to the extent of recovery of charas was found highly discrepant, which could not be lightly ignored

Prosecution witness/Head Constable, who allegedly had seen the proceedings of recovery of charas, did not remember its colour; he also did not know, whether, the charas was in the shape of slabs or otherwise

Investigating Officer, in his statement, admitted that he had not mentioned as to from which drawer, charas was recovered; and that he had not mentioned the number of littars; and also did not mention the colour of the shopping bag in question

Said discrepancies, directly relating to the alleged recovery of charas, could not be termed as minor, rather same had made the prosecution case qua recovery of charas from the possession of accused, as doubtful

Story of the prosecution respecting recovery of charas from accused, being doubtful, could not be believed

While dealing with such like cases, special attention should be paid at the time of apprehension of accused, his search, recovery proceedings; and each and every detail should be brought on record, so that it could be ascertained that entire proceedings conducted by the Investigating Agency, were transparent and smacked truth

To convict accused on the basis of such tainted evidence, respecting recovery of charas was against the principles of natural justice

Conviction and sentence of accused, inflicted upon him vide impugned judgment, were set aside, he was acquitted of the charge by giving benefit of doubt, and he was discharged of his bail bonds.

Samples, were sent to Chemical Examiner, the very next day of occurrence, and report of Chemical Examiner was in positive

Both prosecution witnesses, were put to the test of lengthy cross-examination, but their testimony qua the date of incident, quantity of charas and place of incident could not be shattered

Contradictions, allegedly pointed out by counsel for accused, were minor in nature and would not be fatal to the prosecution case

Accused was apprehended while holding the plastic bag containing contraband charas intending thereby to transport the same to another place

No reason or ground was available to show that accused was not in knowledge of substance lying in his bag

Accused was proved to be taking away the contraband with pre-planning

Prosecution had also proved departure and arrival of the complainant party by producing entries

Accused also failed to show any enmity or ill-will against the complainant and mashir causing them to depose against him falsely

Foisting of such a huge quantity of contraband charas upon accused was not possible

Trial Court, in circumstances did not commit any illegality while awarding sentence to accused, against whom sufficient evidence was on record to prove charge under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

No ground being available to interfere in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, appeal against said judgment was dismissed, in circumstances.