Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: The State VS Respondent: Imran Nazir
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s):Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Manzoor Ahmad
Malik Title: The State vs Imran Nazir Case No.: Criminal Appeals No.17-P & 18-P/2013 Date of Judgment:2019-04-29 Reported As: PLJ 2019 SC Cr.C. 411, 2019 SCMR 1227, 2019 SCP 180 Result: appeal dismissed Judgment Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Arisen out of the same backdrop with a common thread, the captioned appeals are being decided through this single judgment. Way back on 30.6.2004, Anti Narcotics Force, Peshawar on a tip off intercepted a Punjab bound truck bearing registration No.PRC-6168. Upon search, 2800 kilograms of charas was recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle; the respondents were apprehended and sent to face trial before the learned Judge, Special Court (CNS), Peshawar; they were returned a guilty verdict under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life along side fine of Rs.500,000/- or to undergo five years S.I. in the event of default with benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The vehicle was forfeited in favour of the State. A learned division bench of the Peshawar High Court vide impugned judgment dated 24.7.2007 acquitted the respondents from the charge vires whereof are being challenged through leave of the Court on the ground that there was no occasion for the learned High Court to acquit the respondents merely on the ground that the prosecution witnesses failed to point out as to who was on the wheel when ANF contingent surprised them. 2. A huge quantity of contraband notwithstanding we have not been able to take exception to the view taken by the learned High Court inasmuch as in the presence of two individuals in the cabin it was incumbent upon the witnesses to unambiguously point out the person on the vehicle in order to establish conscious possession of the seized stuff and in the face of wavering positions taken by the prosecution itself, respondents cannot be denied the benefit of the doubt, a golden thread in our criminal jurisprudence. We do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment, however the forfeiture of vehicle impounded by the ANF is kept intact. Appeals are dismissed.