Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUMTAZ AHMAD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAMZafar Iqbal Chowhan,Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum and Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad
2007 Y L R 2943
2007 Y L R 2943
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Muhammad Aslam and Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, JJ
MUMTAZ AHMAD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No, 1589 of 2005, decided on 23rd May, 2006.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---
----S.9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---According to. the statement of prosecution witness,: recovery was allegedly effected of "Poppy Straw in grinded form", whereas quantity produced before the court was in solid form---Such fact had knocked down prosecution case at its bottom---Very recovery being doubtful, benefit of said doubt would go to accused---Prosecution having failed to prove its case, conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, were set aside and accused was acquitted and released.
Zafar Iqbal Chowhan for Petitioner.
Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum and Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State.
Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2006.
JUDGMENT
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17-9-2005 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur, whereby he convicted the appellant under seetion 9(c), C.N.S.A., 1997 and sentenced him to four years and fine of Rs.10,000 in case of default in payment of fine he would have to further undergo S.I. for six months.
2. Precisely, the prosecution ease is that mi spy information the .police raided the shop of the accused applicant. He was apprehended and on query he disclosed his name Mumtaz son of Shafi and on search of his shop Poppy straw bag blue in colour was recovered which was found 12 Kgs 10 grams was separated for chemical analysis. Both samples, and. bulk were made into sealed parcels and were .taken into custody. Rs.60 was also recovered. The case was registered accordingly. The case was sent up to the Court after due investigation. Copies under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. was delivered to the appellant accused. Charge was framed. Prosecution evidence was recorded. Statement of the accused appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. was examined. The learned trial Court passed the above-said conviction and sentence.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant argued with reference to the statement of P:W.4 that the recovery was allegedly effected of Poppy straw in grinded form whereas quantity produced before the Court was in solid state. We have consulted the statement of P.W.4 who in his cross-examination stated "the Poppy straw in grinded form and not in solid state. It is correct that today I have examined it and it is solid stated." This fact knocks down the prosecution case at its bottom. The very recovery is doubtful. The benefit of slightest doubt goes to the appellant accused.
5. For what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Resultantly, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and direct acquittal of appellant-accused. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case,
H.B.T./M-298/L Appeal allowed.