Section 29 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997

Section 29 : Presumption from possession of illicit articles

 

2016  YLR  1060   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABID ASHRAF VS State

Ss. 9 (c) & 29—Recovery of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Shifting of onus—Five accused persons were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for maximum imprisonment for three years as Charas weighing different quantities maximum upto three kilograms were recovered from each accused—Validity—Prosecution led sufficient evidence to prove case against all five accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt—Once initial burden of proof was discharged by prosecution with cogent evidence then in terms of S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, accused persons had come under heavy burden to prove their innocence through reliable evidence—Accused did not opt to appear as their own witnesses under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. to prove their innocence—No evidence was available on record on behalf of accused persons that police had some grudge against them to falsely implicate them in the case—Improbable to plant such a huge contraband against accused persons without any reason—High Court declined to interfere with conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016  PCrLJN  81   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GHULAM ABBAS VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29— Possessing and trafficking narcotics— Appreciation of evidence—Nine packets were recovered which weighed 10 Kilograms of opium—All the three accused persons were apprehended at the spot—No material contradiction appeared in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, even after a lengthy cross-examination—Nothing was on record, whether any private person was available at the spot, but not joined the investigation—Contention that there was violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C., had no force, since in narcotic cases joining a private witness was not necessary—Normally, a private person, did not join in the investigation to become a witness—Further, in such an early morning, it was not possible that any private person would be available to be joined in the recovery proceedings; it was immaterial that no witness from the public was associated—Police Officials were as good witnesses as other people—Prosecution version, was further corroborated from the positive report of Chemical Examiner—Substance, was recovered from the wagon in which accused were boarding, and they were arrested from that wagon—Accused, in circumstances, were rightly held guilty of the offence—Recovery of substance, in circumstances, was fully established—Possession of substances, could be joint from two or more accused persons; no condition or qualification existed that substance should be recovered from exclusive possession of a person—Since, all the three accused persons were boarded on the same vehicle, and no other person boarded on that vehicle, accused or driver of the vehicle failed to produce any record that vehicle was a public transport—According to S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once prosecution established the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt, then the burden was shifted to accused—Such a huge quantity of narcotic, could not be planted—All the three appeals were dismissed having no force—Since sentence of accused persons, was suspended by High Court, they were directed to be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the remaining portion of their sentence.

2016  YLR  1081   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

YAR MUHAMMAD VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Recovery of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Principle of shifting of onus—Heroin weighing 43 kilograms and opium weighing 23 kilograms were recovered from the secret cavities of car in which accused persons were travelling—Trial Court convicted both the accused persons and sentenced them to imprisonment for life—Validity—Evidence led by prosecution was without any material variation or lapses—Memo of recovery and FIR were fully corroborated and resultantly proved to the satisfaction of Trial Court—Defense of accused persons was dependent upon mere denial of charge, case as well as evidence and no defense evidence was adduced by accused persons—Initial burden resting on prosecution stood discharged on its part and accused persons failed to rebut the same as provided under S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and also did not lead defense evidence establishing their innocence in the matter—Accused persons were first offender and bread earner members of their families who had served major portion of their sentence—High Court maintained conviction of the accused persons but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one already undergone, which was 20 years and 8 months—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2016  PCrLJ  1860   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GULSHAN SHAIKH VS State

Ss. 9(c), 9(b) & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 103 & 342—Possession, import or export, trafficking or financing of narcotic substance— Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Accused had been arrested and five kilogram of Charas was recovered from him in presence of Mashirs—Prosecution witness had supported the prosecution case—Report of Chemical Examiner had confirmed that the recovered substance was Charas—Accused could not bring any material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses or their ill-will or enmity—Delay in sending the incriminating article to the Chemical Examiner could not be treated as fatal and minor lapses in investigation did not affect the validity of the trial, particularly when the defence had not cross-examined the prosecution witnesses in respect of the same—Accused had not taken the objection as to non-production of original departure and arrival entries and overwriting over the arrival entry at the time when the attested copies of the entries had been exhibited—Overwriting as to arrival time in the entry was not very much material, as the same would be on account of inadvertence and the same was in consonance with the time mentioned in the FIR, and as such the same did not create doubt in the prosecution case—Under S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, there was presumption of possession of narcotic substance against the accused, unless the same was rebutted by way of major contradictions, material irregularity or illegality, mala fide and proof of enmity—Present case, therefore, stood proved against the accused to the hilt leaving no room to doubt the veracity of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, who had not been questioned about their ill-will or animus with the accused for his false involvement in the matter—Accused had only denied the prosecution allegation in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. and had not been able to disprove anything in respect of his defence or mala fide on part of the prosecution—Simple denial of the charge and pleading innocence, without any cogent and convincing evidence did not entitle the accused for his acquittal—Five packets of Charas had been allegedly recovered containing Charas of one kilogram each, out of which one consolidated sample had been taken, which weighed one kilogram—In absence of separate sample from the five each packets of Charas, only one kilogram of Charas was to be considered to have been recovered from the accused, and he could have been convicted and punished for the same accordingly—High Court, converting the conviction under S. 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 into conviction under S. 9(b) of the Act, reduced the sentence of imprisonment for five years to imprisonment for one year and nine months along with fine—Appeal against conviction was disposed of accordingly.

2016  MLD  1931   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Haji MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Ten bags of charas weighing 289 Kgs., having been recovered from the possession of accused persons, they were convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of rupees one million—Counsel for accused persons had prayed for their acquittal, or for reduction of sentence—Accused persons, who had served out major portion of their sentence i.e. more than 16 years, were not previously convicted in any case—Evidence led by the prosecution, was in line with the case, with no material variations or lapses—Memo of recovery and FIR stood fully corroborated and proved to the satisfaction of the Trial Court—Defence depended upon mere denial of the charge and case, as well as evidence—No defence evidence, at all had been adduced—Initial burden resting on the prosecution, stood discharged on its part, and accused had failed to rebut the same as provided under S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and to lead defence evidence establishing their innocence in the matter—Defence counsel prayed for mercy in the matter of punishment on the ground that they were first offenders; were bread earner members of their families, could be dealt with lenient view; more particularly they had served major portion of their sentence and that accused persons, could be allowed to lead their life as reasonable citizens, to support their families for their welfare and well-being—While maintaining the conviction of accused persons, their sentence was reduced to one already undergone—Accused persons, were released, in circumstances.

2016  MLD  291   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BASHIR AHMED DETHO VS State

S.29—Recovery of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Complainant submitted that two pattis, 500 gms. each, charas was sent to the Laboratory and was sealed separately under memo of recovery—Investigation Officer, on the other hand stated that property handed over to him consisted of two parcels each containing 500 gms of charas, one for sending to Chemical Examiner at place “R” and the other at place “K” and one packet contained the remaining material—Such fact was not mentioned in complainant’s statement and it was necessary for prosecution to examine the Police Constable, who according to complainant, prepared the memo of recovery—Investigation Officer further submitted that he had not himself inspected the place of alleged recovery—Contrary to Investigation Officer, complainant stated that he (the investigation officer) visited the alleged place of incident upon his pointation—Material contradictions existed in the case of prosecution in respect of alleged recovery—Accused was not directly connected with offence through sufficient evidence produced against him before Trial Court—Witnesses relied on a police constable who was not cross examined in the court—Accused was acquitted in circumstances.

2016  PCrLJN  106   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHABIR AHMED BROHI VS State

1. 29—Recovery of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Prosecution witness stated that SHO, one of the Prosecution witnesses, got Mashirnama written through a police constable, but he was unable to disclose the name of that constable, whereas according to mashirnma there was only one other constable, apart from the two prosecution witnesses—Contrary to one prosecution witness, other prosecution witness submitted that he himself prepared mashirnama and it was in his own handwriting—First prosecution witness further stated that hands of accused were tied whereas other prosecution witness submitted that accused was handcuffed—Other prosecution witness and mashirnama mentioned that two pieces of charas were lying in shopper but in chemical examination report article which was sent to the laboratory was one black piece—Incident occurred on 16-12-2003 and according to report it was received by the Chemical Examiner on 23-12-2003—Prosecution witness stated that he was transferred on 23-12-2003 but submitted that his successor might have sent the sample to Chemical Examiner—Held, that such contradictions were material and case of prosecution was not free from doubt—Appeal was allowed.

2015  PCrLJ  1108   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD SAID VS State

Preamble & S. 29—Scope of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Onus to prove the guilt of accused—Presumption in favour of the prosecution—Rebuttal of—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as a Special Law, was enacted mainly to curb the menace of narcotics in the country—One of the main striking features provided in the Act, which was different from the general principles of safe administration of criminal justice, was that onus to prove the guilt of accused had not been placed entirely on the prosecution, but on the accused to prove his innocence— Legislature had cast a presumption in favour of the prosecution, which had to be rebutted by accused to prove his innocence—Prosecution could not be totally absolved of his obligations; and duty of initially establishing a ‘prima facie’ case of recovery of contraband from conscious possession of accused; and only after the said initial burden, was discharged by the prosecution, that onus would shift upon accused to prove his innocence.

2015  MLD  507   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AHMAD GUL VS State

S.29—Recovery of narcotic substance—Presumption—If case is of possession of narcotic drug, then prosecution is under obligation to prove that narcotic drug had been recovered from conscious possession of accused.

2015  MLD  507   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AHMAD GUL VS State

S.9(c) & 29—Recovery of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Conscious possession—Proof—Charas weighing 336 kilograms was recovered from secret compartments of truck in which accused was sitting on the seat next to driver—Trial Court convicted accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life—Plea raised by accused was that he boarded truck on the way and did not know about presence of narcotic substances in secret compartments of truck—Validity—Knowledge of accused was not proved by prosecution through any cogent evidence either oral or documentary—Prosecution simply proved his presence in truck with co-accused and mere presence of accused in vehicle was not sufficient to saddle him with recovery of huge quantity of narcotics—Prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused by proving his connectivity or any nexus with his co-accused or his conscious knowledge about concealed contraband narcotics—Such important aspect of case escaped notice of Trial Court and thereby reached to wrong conclusion by convicting the accused—Findings of Trial Court regarding conviction and sentence of accused were set aside and he was acquitted of the charge—Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2015  PLD  157   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAYYAR VS State

S.29—Presumption of possession of illicit articles—Shifting of onus, principle of—Applicability—Prosecution is not absolved from its primary duty to prove its case against accused beyond doubt—When prosecution is discharged of its such duty, then accused charged under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, should bring some susceptible evidence to substantiate his plea of innocence.

2015  PCrLJ  1133   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDULLAH BHUTTO VS State

Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14, 15 & 29—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380, 381, 406, 408 & 409—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.403—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.19—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.13(a)—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Theft in dwelling house, theft by clerk or servant, criminal breach of trust, criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant, public servant—Double jeopardy—Appreciation of evidence—Case against accused was bifurcated in three parts, on direction of Trial Court, and challan was submitted in three counts respectively—Case under Ss.380 & 381, P.P.C. was challaned and submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate at place ‘S’, while offence under Ss.406, 408 & 409, P.P.C. in court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption at place ‘L’ and for offence under Ss.9(c), 14 & 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in the court of Special Judge (Control of Narcotic Substances) at place ‘S’—Accused, had been finally acquitted in first two challan cases regarding theft and misappropriation of charas lying in the Record Room of a court—Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was punitive clause, would come into play only when contravention of Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the Act, was made by accused—Person who was found in possession of narcotic, or was indulged in import and export of narcotic, or was found involved in trafficking of narcotic, could be convicted and sentenced under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Present case of the prosecution was not that accused was found importing or exporting the contraband narcotics in any manner—Contraband charas, was allegedly kept in “Malkhana” of which accused being Police Official was incharge of charas in question, which was allegedly misappropriated for monetary gains—Accused had been acquitted of the charges of misappropriation and theft by both the Trial Courts respectively—Prosecution having failed to prove the primary charges of the theft and misappropriation case of prosecution could not succeed on the same set of evidence in view of Art. 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, merely for the reason of the act of possessing and trafficking the contraband charas—Accused having already been acquitted by two different courts of the charges of theft and misappropriation in the same crime, therefore, rule that no one would be vexed twice for the same offence, was fully applicable in the present scenario of the case—Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, were set aside, and accused was acquitted of the charge and his bail bond stood cancelled and surety was discharged, in circumstances.

2015  PCrLJ  300   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Syed RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH VS State

Ss.6, 9(c), 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C.— Scope— Both the prosecution witnesses had deposed in detail about the day of the incident, and their evidence was consistent with each other—Both witnesses were subjected to lengthy and exhaustive cross-examination, but defence was unable to shatter their evidence, which otherwise was confidence inspiring—Said witness deposed that accused persons were available at their homes; and a huge quantity of narcotics was recovered—Prosecution had discharged its onus as per S.29 of the Act and had successfully established the recovery of the contraband, the source of information, and was consistent about the departure from Police Station and arrival at the spot—Evidence against accused persons did not suffer from any contradiction—Accused persons had been unable to disprove the allegations levelled against them—Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Technicalities of procedural nature, were to be ignored as special law would prevail over the general law—Prosecution witnesses having fully implicated accused persons, there was no reason for false involvement and Trial Court was left with no option, but to pass conviction to accused persons—In absence of any illegality, impropriety, misreading or non-reading of evidence, conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons, was just and proper and same were maintained.

2014  PCrLJ  267   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ALI JAN VS State

Ss.  9(c)  &  29— Possessing  and  trafficking  narcotics—Presumption—Prima facie, sole duty lay on the shoulders of prosecution to show the recovery of the contraband articles from accused; and in case of proving the factum of recovery, responsibility would shift on the shoulders of accused persons, in view of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to prove the fact that they had no concern or connection in recovery of contraband material or no contraband material was recovered from their possession.

2014  PCrLJ  1607   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

TAJ MALI VS State

Preamble, Ss.9 & 29—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Onus to prove the guilt of accused—Presumption in favour of prosecution—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was a special law, which legislature had enacted mainly to curb the menace of narcotics, and had provided therein special provisions to achieve that end—Onus to prove the guilt of accused, had not been placed entirely on the prosecution, but on accused to prove his innocence—Legislature had cast a presumption in favour of the prosecution, which had to be rebutted  by  accused  to  prove  his  innocence— Prosecution  could not be totally absolved of his obligation; and duty of initially establishing a “prima facie” case of recovery of contraband from accused; and only after said initial burden was discharged by the prosecution that the onus would shift upon the accused to prove his innocence.

2014  PCrLJ  1607   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

TAJ MALI VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Initial obligation of the prosecution—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Initial burden of establishing a ‘prima facie’ connection between accused and the contraband recovered from him had not been positively carried out—Most crucial links of the chain, which established the ‘prima facie’ connection between accused and contraband, were missing in the case—Registration number of vehicle in the name of accused, or any other distinguishing feature of the vehicle from which the recovery had been made, was not recorded in evidence by any of the prosecution witnesses—Narcotic was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory giving no name of the constable—No evidence was available to suggest as to where the alleged samples of contraband were stored after their recovery—Was not known as to how alleged samples were received at the Forensic Science Laboratory—Prosecution had not offered any plausible explanation for the delay of twelve days in sending the narcotic for its chemical analysis—Alleged recovered contraband and vehicle when produced in the court, could not be definitely linked with the case—Initial obligation of the prosecution to make out a case, as per the mandate of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had not been carried out in the eyes of law—Trial Court was influenced by the huge quantity involved in the case and extended every possible benefit to the prosecution in contrast to the true import of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Law mandated that court was to be conscious of not the quantity of contraband, but the quality of evidence produced in the court for reaching a correct conclusion and just evidence of the case—Prosecution had failed to prove charge against accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt—Dents existed in the prosecution case, creating sufficient doubt about the alleged recovery, the benefit of which would go to accused—Impugned conviction and sentence of accused, were set aside and he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him and was released in circumstances.

2014  PCrLJ  516   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. THELAY DARA VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the star witnesses of the prosecution, could not be considered so material so as to shatter and make doubtful the recovery of the contraband—Such discordant and conflicting portion of evidence, could at the most be termed as human error—Recovery of contraband could not be doubted, when there was no defence and explanation against, prima facie, established recovery of narcotics by accused as required under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—No enmity of the prosecution witnesses, who were Police Officials, with accused, was ever suggested by accused—No explanation came forward from the side of accused as to for what purpose, she was present there with her co-accused, having no relation with him—In absence of any such explanation and simple denial by accused, would be sufficient to prove her guilt—Weight of recovered substance, was less than the quantity as prescribed in proviso to S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused, in circumstances,  had  become entitled to the benefit of a borderline case—Accused was a first offender having no previous history of being involved in such like cases—Accused being woman, would deserve leniency—Sentence awarded to accused being too harsh, called for reduction—Maintaining conviction of accused, her sentence was reduced from ‘Twenty-Five’ years R.I. to ‘Ten’ years R.I., and that of fine from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.50,000.

2014  MLD  705   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SHAKEEL KHAN VS State

Preamble, Ss.9 & 29—Purpose and nature of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Onus to prove guilt of accused—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was a special law, which the legislature had enacted mainly to curb the menace of narcotics in the country; and had provided therein special provisions to achieve the said end—Onus to prove the guilt of accused had not been placed entirely on the prosecution, but on accused to prove his innocence—Legislature had cast a presumption in favour of the prosecution, which had to be rebutted by accused to prove his innocence—Prosecution could not be totally absolved of its obligation and duty of initially establishing a “prima facie” case of recovery of contraband from conscious possession of accused—Only after said initial burden was discharged by the prosecution, that the onus would shift upon accused to prove his innocence.

2014  MLD  705   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SHAKEEL KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—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.

2014  PLD  69   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NASEEBULLAH VS State

1. 29—Possession of illicit articles—Presumption—Duty had been cast upon the court under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to presume in a trial that accused had committed the offence, unless contrary was proved.

2014  PCrLJ  1075   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AWAL RAEF VS State

1. 29—Conscious possession of narcotics—Presumption—Onus lay upon accused to prove his unawareness about narcotic substance found in his possession.

2014  PCrLJ  662   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GUL ZAMAN VS State

1. 29— Presumption— Scope— Presumption of possession of illicit articles is there unless person prosecuted rebuts such presumption.

2013  YLR  2407   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

MOULA BAKHSH VS State

Ss.6 & 29—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120—Possession of narcotics—Onus to prove—Though Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is a special law wherein burden to prove innocence is always upon accused but the same does not absolve prosecution from its primary duty of proving a case beyond any reasonable doubt—Prosecution must prove violation of law by one or more than one persons.

2013  YLR  2260   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SHER AKBAR VS State

Ss.  9(c)  &  29—Qanun-e-Shahadat  (10 of 1984), Art. 122—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Allegation against the accused persons was that they were possessing 50 kilograms of heroin—Trial Court convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to life imprisonment each with fine of Rs.50,000 each—Validity—Both the accused had admitted their presence in the confiscated vehicle at the time of raid and they had not denied the factum that contraband was not recovered from the secret cavities of the confiscated truck wherein one accused was passenger sitting in the front seat of the truck while the other accused was found on driving seat and prosecution had succeeded in proving the recovery and arrest of accused—Accused could not take benefit of defective defence evidence but prosecution was not absolved from their primary duty to prove its case against the accused beyond  reasonable doubt—Under Section 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997, burden would lie on the accused to give evidence in disproof of prosecution evidence to absolve themselves from responsibility of having or carrying contraband—Prosecution had proved its case against one of the accused who, at the time of interception of the truck, was driving the same, as contraband could not be concealed in the truck without his knowledge—Other accused, though was present in the vehicle but  there was no evidence that either he was cleaner or helper in the truck nor any incriminating material was recovered from him, so his case would stand on different footing from the other accused who was driver of the truck—Appeal filed by the accused who was not driving the truck was accepted and conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court to his extent was set aside and he was acquitted from the charges by extending benefit of doubt to him while appeal of the accused who was driving the truck was dismissed.

2013  YLR  1667   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAJJAD AHMAD VS State

Ss.9(c) & 29—Recovery of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Defence plea—False implication—Onus to prove—Accused were driver and co-driver of truck, out of which Charas and opium weighing 278 kilograms was recovered—Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life—Plea raised by accused was that they were falsely implicated—Validity—Narration given by all prosecution witnesses remained consistent and confidence inspiring—Question of false implication was too remote a possibility—Accused in a futile attempt tried to make out a case by saying that nothing was recovered from the truck driven by them or they did not know about presence of contraband in truck in question and they had been falsely charged in the case—Accused, neither opted to produce defence witness nor desired to depose on oath in support of their contentions which fact too proved their guilt—Charge against accused was proved beyond any shadow of doubt and Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused—Findings of Trial Court were free from any infirmity and were not open to any interference—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2013  PCrLJ  1633   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD SHAKOOR VS State

1. 29—Recovery of narcotic substance—Presumption—Onus, shifting of—Firstly prosecution has to establish the fact that narcotic drugs were recovered from the possession of accused—If prosecution proves recovery of contraband from constructive custody of accused, then burden of proof lies on accused to prove that contraband recovered was not in his conscious knowledge.

2013  PCrLJ  1633   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD SHAKOOR VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Narcotic substance, recovery of—Appreciation of evidence—Conscious knowledge—Proof—Shifting of onus to prove—Charas Garda weighing 159.2 kilogram was recovered from secret cavities of car in use of both the accused persons—Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life—Validity—Both the accused were in the exclusive possession of car, whereof narcotic drugs were recovered, presumption to be that the narcotics concealed in secret cavities of the car was in their knowledge and as such both the accused were said to be in conscious possession of narcotics, otherwise they must prove that they were ignorant of contraband—High Court did not find any infirmity in judgment passed by Trial Court resultantly conviction and sentence was maintained—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2013  PCrLJ  843   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

INZAR VS State

Ss. 6 & 29—Possession of narcotics—Presumption for possession of illicit articles—In case of possession of narcotics drugs, the prosecution had to establish the fact that the narcotics were secured from the possession of accused—Court was required to presume that accused was guilty, unless he proved that he was not in possession of such narcotics—Prosecution was to establish that accused had some direct relationship with the narcotic drugs, or had otherwise dealt with the same—If the prosecution proved the concealment of the articles or physical custody of it, then the burden of proving that accused was not knowingly in possession of the articles was upon him—Knowledge was the essential ingredient of the offence.

2013  MLD  1078   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAIF-UL-ABBAS VS State

Ss.9(c) & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342—Recovery of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Defence plea—False implication—Onus to prove—Accused was driving car out of which Charas weighing 185 kilograms was recovered—Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life—Accused raised the plea that he was falsely implicated—Validity—Nothing was available on record to show that quantity of substance recovered was exaggerated or that all packets recovered from vehicle were not proved to have been of substance other than narcotics—Discrepancies or contradictions, if any, in statements of prosecution witnesses, highlighted by accused were not of a nature as could negate recovery resulting into dislodging entire prosecution version—Absence of any motive on the part of prosecution witnesses would further negate possibility of false implication—Onus to prove defence plea, under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was on the accused to have led evidence in support of his innocence regarding lack of knowledge that he was ignorant about presence of any narcotics in vehicle in question and to such effect his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. could be quoted wherein he refused to produce any defence evidence in support of his innocence—Accused being driver of motor car in question was presumed to be in control of the vehicle about which he had complete knowledge even presence of anything in it—Question of ignorance regarding presence of any contraband in the vehicle did not arise—Charge against accused was proved beyond any shadow of doubt and Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced him—Findings of Trial Court were free from any infirmity and were not open to any interference—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2013  MLD  57   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ZARGHUN SHAH VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of  evidence—Accused  being  driver  of  the  vehicle  was  Incharge  of  the  same,  and  all  the  articles  lying  therein  were  under  his  control  and possession—In the present case, 116 packets of charas garda, 58 packets of charas pukhta and 18 packets of opium were recovered—Plea of accused that he was innocent about the transportation of the narcotics by concealing the same in the especially designed cavities, was not tenable—Accused had not denied the recovery from the vehicle being driven by him—Prosecution witnesses having no background of any enmity/ill will with accused, question that accused was substituted for the real culprit, did not hold the field—Prosecution witnesses could not thrust upon accused huge quantity of narcotics being recovered, which could not be planted against him—Once the prosecution had prima facie established its case, then under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, burden shifted upon accused to prove contrary to the plea of the prosecution, but accused had failed to discharge that burden—Sufficient evidence was available on record to suggest that due course had been adopted in connection with destruction of case property—Investigating Officer had not been specifically and seriously cross-examined by the defence counsel in  that  respect—Prosecution  witnesses  had  been cross-examined  in  detail,  but nothing had come from their mouth to benefit accused—Evidence of recovery in respect of quantity of narcotic substances, recovered  and  sent  for  chemical  analysis,  was  consistently  estab-lished by the prosecution witnesses, which was also supported by Forensic  Science  Laboratory’s  report—Normal  sentence  in  such  like  cases  was  death,  however,  in  no  circumstances,  it  should  be  less than life imprisonment—High Court could not consider the  request for lesser punishment, in circumstances—Order accordingly.

2013  YLR  2560   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AYAZ PATHAN VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9(c), 14, 15, 25 & 29—Possessing, trafficking of narcotics, and aiding, abetting and associating in narcotic offences—Bail, refusal of—Prosecution witnesses, had no enmity whatsoever, with accused to foist such a huge quantity of nine Kilograms of charas upon him—Chemical Examiner’s report regarding recovered charas was found positive—Substance recovered from accused, was proved to be charas—Prosecution, in circumstances, had discharged its initial onus while proving that the substance recovered from accused was contraband charas—Sufficient material was available on record, which had shown that accused was found sitting on front seat of the vehicle, and he was found responsible for transportation of narcotics—Defence plea that the narcotic was not recovered from possession of accused, was not true—Alleged offence was heinous one falling within prohibited clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Contention that respectable inhabitants of the locality, were not associated as witness or mashir, was not attracted in view of S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C., had been excluded in the cases of recovery of narcotics—Evidence of Police Officials, was as good as of any other public witness, in absence of any malice or mala fide—Defence plea raised by accused, required deeper appreciation of evidence, which was not admissible at bail stage—Under provisions of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 presumption would be that a person who was found in possession of narcotics, had committed offence, unless otherwise proved—Reasonable grounds, prima facie, did exist to believe the involvement of accused in the offence alleged against him—Bail application having no merits for consideration, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2013  YLR  237   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ASIF ALI VS State

1. 29—Possession of illicit articles—Presumption—Burden of proof—Scope—Prosecution had the primary obligation to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and its burden was not shifted under the presumption contained in S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which section only stated that once the prosecution had established recovery beyond shadow of doubt, it was then that the burden was shifted—Section 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not absolve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove its case beyond doubt.

2013  YLR  187   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUDASIR SHAH VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possessing and trafficking of narcotic—Appreciation of evidence—Accused persons reportedly had brought a huge quantity of charas in a bus being smugglers of the same and they having knowledge of the availability of charas concealed in the bus, also resisted search—Such charas was recovered from the secret box/cavity of the bus and accused were arrested at the spot—Such evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court was found to have established the guilt of accused—No sort of alleged enmity or any reason of false implication was shown by accused anywhere in the proceedings of the case—Once the knowledge and possession of accused, corroborated by the recovery, was proved by the prosecution, the burden to disprove the charge then shifted upon accused, but accused failed to discharge the same as required in terms of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997–Appeal of co-accused had already been dismissed up to the Supreme Court and case of accused was identical to that of convicted co-accused—Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly held the accused as guilty of the charge having been proved against them beyond any reasonable doubt.

2013  PCrLJ  1837   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29(d)—Smuggling of narcotics—Possession of illicit articles, presumption—Appreciation of evidence—Accused who were travelling in Bus, were arrested and in their presence and pointation, huge quantity of narcotics was recovered—Boxes containing narcotics were lying on the roof of the Bus and all accused had knowledge about the same—One of accused was owner, others were driver, second driver and conductor of the Bus, and one of them was sitting in the Bus on whose pointation the narcotics were recovered—Contentions were that a driver and conductor could not be held responsible for transporting contraband articles and that at best their responsibility would start only when the contraband items had been recovered from the designed cavities of the bus—Validity—Under provisions of S.29(d) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, unless otherwise proved, presumption would be that accused had committed an offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in respect of any material which had undergone any process towards the production or manufacture of narcotics—Presence of accused persons being owner, driver, second driver and conductor of the Bus was not denied; they were arrested from the spot in presence of Mashirs—Recovered articles were lying openly in boxes on the roof of the Bus, same would be in the knowledge  of accused persons—Accused, in circumstances were equally responsible for the transportation of said narcotic substance and  in  circumstances  could  not  be  absolved  from  the  responsibility.

2012  PLD  380   SUPREME-COURT

AMEER ZEB VS State

S.29—Narcotic substance—Recovery—Proof of—Onus to prove—Scope—Initial onus on prosecution in such cases includes the onus to prove that entire substance allegedly recovered is in fact narcotic substance and such onus can be discharged by prosecution only if sample of recovered substance sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis are  representative  samples  of  entire  quantity of recovered substance.

2012  PCrLJ  512   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

SAMIULLAH VS State

1. 29—Presumption from possession of illicit articles—Scope—Burden to prove—Primary duty is of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and its burden is not shifted to the accused under the presumption contained in S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Section 29 only says that once the prosecution establishes recovery beyond  doubt, it is then that the burden is shifted—Said section does not absolve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove its case beyond doubt—Defence plea, if any, has to be adjudged by the court for its probability and legal value depending on the circumstances of the case.

2012  PCrLJ  303   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

MUHAMMAD ILYAS VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Narcotics substance was recovered from the vehicle which was  in  control  of  accused  being  its  driver  and  owner—Accused had  not  denied  the  recovery  from  the  vehicle  while  he  was driving  the  same; in view of such admitted position, contradictions and  improvements  in  the  statements  of  the  prosecution  witnesses, were  of  less  consideration—Legal  presumption  of  the offence, would be against the accused as provided under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused claimed his innocence on the basis of the admission made by co-accused, while replying to the charge—Such fact was less beneficial to  accused  as  co-accused  only  admitted  his  guilt  to  the  extent  of four Kgs of  Hashish, while he showed  his  no  concern  with  the  remaining  narcotic—Recovery of 25 Kgs Charas was an established fact, but accused had no explanation about the remaining 21 Kgs, of the  contraband—Accused  had  to  be  accounted  for  the  remaining 21  Kgs. narcotics substance, recovery of which from the vehicle was an established fact—Accused, in circumstances, had completely failed to make out any case in his favour—Sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was upheld, in circumstances.

2012  YLR  1264   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

JAVED VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 29—Trafficking of narcotics—Bail, refusal of—Huge quantity of contraband charas weighing 120 kilograms had been recovered from the truck which was driven by accused—Prosecution was required to prove that accused was in the knowledge of narcotic under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, then the burden would shift to accused to disprove his possession—Accused being the driver of the truck in question, was supposed to be in possession of narcotic kept in secret cavities of the truck because he was incharge of the same—Accused who was in exclusive possession of the truck, was reasonably connected with the presence of 120 kilogram contraband charas kept in the secret cavities of the truck—Keeping in view the quantity of charas, the offence fell under the prohibitory limit of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Role of co-accused who had been released, was quite different to the accused as co-accused was not driving the truck at the relevant time—Role of both accused persons being not equal, the rule of consistency was not applicable to case of accused—Challan had been submitted to the Trial Court and the trial was likely to commence—Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012  PCrLJ  313   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

WAHEEDULLAH VS State

Ss. 6 & 29—Presumption of possession of illicit articles—Section 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 cast duty upon the court to presume in a trial under the Act that accused had committed the offence under that Act, unless contrary was proved—If the case was of possession of narcotic drugs then prosecution had to first establish the fact that the narcotic drugs were secured from the possession of accused, and the court was required to presume that accused was guilty, unless accused proved that he was not in possession of such drugs—Prosecution was supposed to establish that accused had some direct relationship with narcotic drugs or had otherwise dealt with it and if retention of the article or physical custody of it was proved then the burden of proving that accused was not knowingly in possession of the article was upon him—Practical difficulty of the prosecution to prove something within the exclusive knowledge of accused, must have made the legislature think that if the onus was placed on the prosecution, the object of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 would be frustrated—Knowledge was an essential ingredient of the offence as the word “possession” connoted in the context of S.6 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, “possession with knowledge”—Legislature could not have intended to make mere physical custody without knowledge of offence, therefore “possession” must be conscious possession—By virtue of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 the prosecution had only to show by evidence that accused had dealt with the narcotic substance or had physical custody of the same; or directly concerned with it, unless accused would prove by preponderance of probability that he did not knowingly or consciously possess the article—Without such proof, accused would be held guilty by virtue of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2012  MLD  1884   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NAVEED SHAHZAD VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Trial Court, had rightly found that prosecution had undoubtedly established the recovery of contraband charas weighing 99 Kgs. and heroin powder weighing 4 Kgs. from the secret cavities of vehicle driven by accused, regarding which he had full knowledge—Witnesses who appeared in the Trial Court against accused had no enmity or malice against him—Though witnesses were officials of Anti-Narcotic Force, but in the absence of enmity or grudge, they were as competent witnesses as other public witnesses; and their testimony could not be discarded or brushed aside on the sole ground that they were members of Anti-Narcotic Force—All the prosecution witnesses who had witnessed the recovery of the contraband from the vehicle being driven by accused, had remained consistent so far as the time, place and mode of recovery was concerned, despite lengthy cross-examination by the defence—No reason existed to discard their testimony—Trial Court had rightly rejected defence version of accused after considering each and every piece of evidence on record before recording conviction against accused—Prosecution had successfully established its case through confidence inspiring evidence of eye-witnesses, which was not at all shattered by the defence during cross-examination—Report of Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of the samples separated from lot of contraband, was in positive—Accused had not discharged his burden within the meaning of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court was well founded and needed no interference—Conviction and sentence of accused was maintained and appeal being devoid of force, was dismissed.

2012  MLD  1846   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ALI REHMAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Smuggling of narcotic—Appreciation of evidence—Accused was on the driving seat of vehicle allegedly carrying narcotics and was driving the same at the time of occurrence—Date, time and arrest of accused from the spot, were not questioned during the course of cross-examination—Both prosecution witnesses who furnished ocular account, had made no departure from their earlier version and had fully supported the prosecution story—Said witnesses had remained fully consistent, coherent and had successfully faced the test of cross-examination and no material contradiction had been pointed out from their evidence—Minor contradictions pointed out by the counsel for accused, were not serious in nature, and those could never be considered sufficient to vitiate the trial, or make  the  recovery  doubtful—Mere fact that said witnesses belonged to Anti-Narcotic Force, by itself could not be considered a good ground to discard their statements—Accused had not produced any convincing straightforward and coherent evidence—Accused though had produced defence, but he failed to prove his version of having no conscious knowledge of narcotics in the vehicle driven by him—Story narrated by accused in his statement under Ss.342 and 340(2), Cr.P.C., did not appeal to the prudent mind—Material contradictions existed in his statement, which had belied the story of accused—Witnesses produced by accused, had not toed the lines of accused in letter and spirit—Story narrated by accused was nothing, but a bull and cock story, while against him the story narrated by the prosecution witnesses, was natural, true and supported  by  the  recovery  of  huge  quantity  of  narcotics  and  the  truck which was under the control of accused—Recovery witnesses were not shown to be motivated by any ill-will or enmity towards accused—Accused had failed to prove his case by producing convincing and strong evidence—Accused could not point out any mala fide or ulterior  motive  on  behalf  of  seizing  officer  to  falsely  charge  him for  the  recovery  of  huge  quantity  of  narcotics  recovered  from  the vehicle which was under his control—Appeal was dismissed.

2012  YLR  867   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD ASIF VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possession and trafficking of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—When severe punishments were provided under special enactment i.e. Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, heavy burden lay on the prosecution to prove the charge against accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt—Keeping possession of narcotic substance itself was an offence; and if conscious possession of any such substance was proved, then under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, burden would shift on the person to show as to how and in what circumstances he was found in possession of the substance; and if he failed to show cause, severe punishment could be awarded to him—Prosecution was to prove firstly that the recovered substance was narcotic; and was to be proved with certainty by unimpeachable admissible evidence statements of the prosecution witnesses that the substance was recovered from the possession of the accused person—In the present case,  accused was found present in the parking area of the Airport along with his two co-accused, and from his possession a bag containing 4 kgs. heroin was recovered out of which only one gram substance allegedly was separated for sample—Two witnesses who claimed themselves to be present at the time of recovery of heroin from accused, specifically stated that only one gram was separated as sample—Five packets which contained five grams of heroin as sample parcel were sent to the Office of Chemical Examiner, about which report in the positive was submitted before the Trial Court—Said report, according to the statement of prosecution witness, did not relate to the substance recovered from the accused—One could not say with certainty that the substance allegedly recovered from the accused was narcotic—Prosecution was not able to prove that substance was the same which was recovered from the accused—Report of Chemical Examiner, in circumstances, could not connect accused with the alleged recovery of heroin—Benefit of doubt was to be extended in favour of accused—Impugned conviction and sentence awarded to accused, was set aside, he was acquitted of the charge and was released from the jail, in circumstances.

2012  YLR  805   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

IBRAR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Smuggling of narcotics— Appreciation of evidence—Statements  of  prosecution  witnesses  had  no material discrepancies—Minor discrepancies and innocent admissions during cross-examination were natural due to a lapse of more than three years—Credibility of police witnesses or Excise Staff was as good and respectable as any other public witnesses and their statements could not be discarded owing to their being employees of the said departments—Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had excluded the applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases— Non-association of private witnesses with investigation, therefore, was no defect to vitiate conviction—Provisions of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of the said Act being directory in nature, their non-compliance would not make the trial bad in the eyes of law—Charas and opium had been recovered from the car in possession of accused, technicalities of any nature could be overlooked in the larger interest of the country, if the case otherwise stood proved—Chemical Examiner’s reports regarding charas and opium recovered from the accused were positive—Prosecution thus, had discharged its initial onus, whereas accused had failed to discharge their burden in terms of S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Prosecution evidence was consis-tent—Impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegality—Appeals were dis-missed in circumstances.

2012  YLR  1372   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SAEED KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possessing and trafficking the narcotic—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Two hundred and forty  packets of charas, each weighing one Kg of charas were recovered from the secret cavities of truck in question—Said packets were then put in plastic bags in such a way that there were forty packets in each plastic bag; and from each plastic bag, one packet was separated and sealed and sent for chemical examination—Six Kgs of charas was sent for examination—No evidence whatsoever was available that the remaining quantity was also charas—Burden of proof, in circumstances, was on the prosecution—Evidence produced thus showed that prosecution could prove six Kgs. of charas and nothing more—No discrepancy was found in the number of samples received or the weight—Section 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, created presumption, which presumption could be rebutted by satisfactorily explaining it away—No such explanation was given by accused, the driver, as to whom did the vehicle in question belong; and how did he come about it—Quantity proved to have been recovered from accused being six Kgs. with additional mitigating factor regarding existence of secret cavity, ends of justice would be served if while conviction of accused was maintained, the punishment was modified from life to imprisonment for eight years—Sentence  of fine, was maintained and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was also given to accused—Prosecution had failed to prove that co-accused was in any way in possession, actual or constructive of the narcotic substance or had any link with the vehicle—Co-accused was acquitted of the charge, and was ordered to be released, in circumstances.

2012  YLR  1316   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BACHA MIR VS State

1997. 29—Presumption from possession of illicit articles—Primary duty of the prosecution was to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, but after discharging its burden, if accused would take plea in defence, it was statutory burden upon the accused under S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to discharge the same through cogent evidence—Prosecution was supposed to establish that accused had some direct relationship with the narcotic drugs, or had otherwise dealt with the same—If the prosecution proved the detention of the article or physical custody of it, then the burden of proving that accused was not knowingly in possession of the articles was upon him—Practical difficulty of the prosecution to prove something within the exclusive knowledge of accused must have made the legislature think that if the onus was placed on the prosecution, the object of the said Act would be frustrated—By virtue of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, prosecution had only to show by evidence that accused had dealt with the narcotic substances or had physical custody of it, or directly concerned with it, unless accused proved by preponderance of probability that he did not knowingly or consciously possessed the article—Without such proof, accused would be held guilty by virtue of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2011  SCMR  1954   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS State

1. 29— Trial— Presumption of guilt— Shifting of onus, principle of—Applicability—Duty upon the court has been cast under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to presume in the trial that accused has committed an offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, unless contrary is proved—Firstly prosecution has to establish  the  fact  that  narcotic  drugs  were  secured  from the  possession  of  accused—If  prosecution  proves  recovery of narcotics  from  physical  custody  of  accused,  then  burden  of proving that he was not knowingly in possession of the article is upon the accused.

2011  MLD  1819   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Haji ABDUL RAHIM VS State

Ss. 9(c), 20, 21 & 29—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)  Order  (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(e)—Possessing narcotics, prohibition of manufacturing and owning intoxicant and possessing unlicensed arms—Appreciation of evidence—Raid was conducted at odd hours of the night at about 10-15 P.M., there was no possibility of availing search warrants as emergency for the raid was mentioned in the F.I.R.—Even otherwise S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had empowered the officer to enter, search and arrest without warrants; and S.20 of the Act being directory in nature, its non-compliance could not be considered a strong ground for holding that the trial of accused was bad in the eye of law—Prosecution witnesses had throughout remained consistent and no contradictions were noticed in their statements with regard to the recovery of opium from the Baitak in presence and possession of accused—Presumption under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was that unless the contrary was proved, accused would be considered to have committed offence under the Act in respect of contraband—Accused, in the present case,  had failed to rebut said presumption—Defence, during the trial was wavering and was not consistent in its plea—Objection of the counsel for accused on the analysis report was also vague as the report was issued by Federal Government Analyst, who had received sealed parcel of suspected material—Charge against accused was not defective as urged by accused and no error or illegality was found in the same—Accused had failed to substantiate his plea that he had any dispute/quarrel with or had enmity with Officer of Anti-Narcotic Force—Defence plea proved to be sham and baseless and there was no possibility of false implication or foisting the contraband—Prosecution, in circumstances, had proved its case against accused up to the hilt with regard to recovery of 15.500 Kgs opium—Conviction awarded to accused by the Trial Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and no reason existed to interfere in the same.

2011  YLR  1187   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. GULAB JAN VS State

1. 29—Possession of narcotics—Presumption—Person found to be in possession of illicit articles would be presumed to have committed the offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 unless the contrary had been proved.

2011  YLR  1187   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. GULAB JAN VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 29—Possession of narcotics—Bail, refusal of–Accused could not justify their presence in the car carrying the contraband and failed to establish that they were not in conscious possession of the contraband—Presence of the accused in said car was sufficient to link theist with the recovery—Person found to be in possession of illicit articles would be presumed to have committed the offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 unless the contrary had been proved—Accused failed to rebut the presumption under S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Plea of the accused that they were travelling in the car as hitch-hikers could not be believed—Offence of the accused fell within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. disentitling them to the concession of, bail—Bail application was dismissed.

2011  PCrLJ  277   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NASRULLAH VS State

Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Recovery of contraband and registration documents and number plates of the vehicle from accused corroborated the prosecution story—Accused failed to explain plausibly the purpose of his journey in public/government vehicle without . permission of the officer concerned—No reason for false implication through planting huge quantity of contraband was alleged or established—Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the operation of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases wherein recovery was made on highway, road side or from a moving vehicle—Rules 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 placed no bar on the Investigating Officer to send the samples beyond/after 72 hours of the seizure, receive the Forensic Science Laboratory report after 15 days and place the report so received before the Trial Court—Rules 4 & 5 being directory and not mandatory, could not control the substantive provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the same had to be applied in such a manner that would not frustrate the purpose of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Failure to follow Rr.4 & 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 would not render the search, seizure and arrest under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 an absolute nullity—In the absence of any allegation of tampering with the contraband, delay would not affect the result of analysis—Accused failed to rebut the presumption of possession of illicit articles under S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and could not point out any illegality or non-reading or misreading of evidence warranting interference of High, Court in appellate jurisdiction—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2011  PCrLJ  1086   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Haji MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MUHAMMAD SAEED

Ss. 6, 9(c) & 29—Anti-Narcotics Force Act (III of 1997), Ss.3 & 5—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103, 537 & 561-A—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Quashment of proceedings—Constitutional jurisdiction and powers of High Court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.—Scope—Possession of narcotic drugs etc.—Accused challenged proceedings against them through constitutional petition contending that in the presence of Anti-Narcotic Force, local Police had no authority to register the F.I.R. and investigate the case—Validity—Accused having been allegedly involved in a case registered under Ss.6 & 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which provided maximum penalty of death or imprisonment of life, innocence or guilt of the accused could not be determined without conclusion of the trial—Under S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, accused was presumed to have committed the alleged offence until the contrary was proved—Section 103, Cr.P.C. made the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality mandatory at the time of search made by an officer—Application of S.103, Cr. P. C. was purposely excluded. by the legislature from searches under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in order to avoid formalities/complications of S.103, Cr. P. C.—Exclusion of role of local Police from investigating narcotic case would negate the provisions of S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—High Court had ample powers under Art.199 of the Constitution and S.561-A, Cr.P. C. to quash the proceedings which were ex facie illegal or where the court had arrived at a positive conclusion that the proceedings were ex facie coram non judice—High Court could exercise jurisdiction in exceptional cases without waiting for the Trial Court to pass orders under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.—Where no offence was made out by facts on record, allowing prosecution to proceed with the trial would amount to abuse of the process of law—Assumption of jurisdiction without lawful authority could be quashed in constitutional jurisdiction—Section 537, Cr.P.C. provided that no finding, sentence, order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction would be reversed or altered on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, report by Police Officer under S.173, Cr.P.C. summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or any inquiry or other proceeding under the Criminal Procedure Code—Police had not violated any law by arresting the accused—Petition was dismissed accordingly.

2011  MLD  159   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MATEEN KAMAL VS State

Ss. 6, 9(c) & 29—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Huge quantity of Charas weighing 1948 Kgs was recovered from the specifically built secret store room in the upper portion of the bungalow wherein accused were allegedly living as tenants—Said store room could not have been constructed without express permission of accused owner of the bungalow who was in full knowledge of the construction of the store built for storing Charas and. was connected with the recovered Charas—Accused owner could not show that he had been away from his bungalow for considerably long period of time during which accused tenant might have constructed the store without his knowledge—Though accused denied that they were living in the bungalow as tenant but recovery of the car of one of the accused established their presence in the said bungalow—Judgment of the Trial Court was upheld—Appeals were dismissed.

2010  SCMR  1962   SUPREME-COURT

SALAH-UD-DIN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Re-appraisal of evidence—Recovery of narcotics—Official witnesses, evidence of—Charas weighing 20 kilograms was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Trial Court—Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was maintained by High Court—Plea raised by accused was that no private witness was associated in recovery proceedings—Validity—Accused was apprehended at the spot from a vehicle on whose search 20 kilogram Charas was found for which F.I.R. was got lodged with promptitude and samples from recovered material were sent to Chemical Expert without any loss of time which were found “Charts” as a result of chemical examination—No enmity was alleged against prosecution witnesses and there was no possibility for false implication without having any ulterior motive which was never alleged—Defence version was rightly discarded which was denial simplciter and did not appeal to logic and reason—Reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases had become judicially recognized fact and there was no way out but to consider statement of official witness, as no legal bar or restriction had been imposed in such regard—Police officials were as good witnesses and could be relied upon, if their testimony remained un-shattered during cross examination—Provisions of S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had provided exclusion of S.103, Cr.P.C. during recovery proceedings—Trial Court had appreciated the entire evidence and conclusion arrived at was affirmed by High Court which judgment was well based and did not warrant interference—Leave to appeal was refused.

2010  SCMR  927   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD NOOR  VS State

1997. 29—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 120—Possession of illicit articles—Presumption—Onus to prove—Duty is caste upon the Court to presume in trial under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, that accused has committed an offence under the Act, unless contrary is proved—If case is of possession of narcotic drugs than first prosecution has to establish the fact that narcotic drugs were secured from the possession of accused then Court is required to presume that accused is guilty unless accused proves that he was not in possession of such drugs—It is necessary for prosecution to establish that accused has some direct relationship with narcotic drugs or has otherwise dealt with it—If prosecution proves detention of articles or physical custody of it then burden of proving that accused was not knowingly in possession of the article is upon him—Practical difficulty of prosecution to prove something within the exclusive knowledge of accused must have made Legislature think that if onus is placed on prosecution the object of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would be frustrated—Prosecution, by virtue of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, has only to show by evidence that accused has dealt with narcotic substance or has physical custody of it or directly concerned with it, unless accused proves by preponderance of probability that he did not knowingly or consciously possess the article—Without such proof, accused can be held guilty by virtue of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2010  SCMR  927   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD NOOR  VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.122—Reappraisal of evidence—Recovery of narcotics—Fact specially within knowledge—Onus to prove—Charas weighing 268 kilograms was recovered from secret cavities of vehicle and accused were arrested from the vehicle—Plea raised by accused was that they were not in knowledge of presence of narcotics in the vehicle—Validity—No evidence was led by prosecution to indicate that accused knew that Charas or narcotic substance was concealed in secret cavities or had knowledge of that place so as to attract the provisions of Art.122 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—If property was lying open within the view of accused or they knew placement of property then situation would be different in such situation, accused were required to explain their position in terms of Art.122 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, without such explanation their involvement in the case would be proved—Such knowledge of accused had not been proved through any evidence either oral or documentary, therefore, they were not required to explain anything—Prosecution had simply proved presence of accused in the vehicle and mere presence of accused in vehicle would not involve them in the case conspiracy or abatement of the offence was shown and proved, therefore, prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused–Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and they were acquitted of the charge—Appeal was allowed.

2010  SCMR  927   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD NOOR  VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Reappraisal of evidence—Recovery of narcotics—Possession of driver—Scope—Charas weighing 268 kilograms was recovered from secret cavities of vehicle—Driver of the vehicle and his co-accused were convicted under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and were sentenced to imprisonment for life—Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was maintained by High Court—Validity—Accused who was driving the vehicle was in possession of the vehicle and also in possession of the articles whatever lying in it—Allegation against co-accused was that on his information secret cavities of vehicle were opened and Charas was secured—Co-accused had knowledge of availability of Charas in secret cavities of the vehicle, therefore, he was also involved in the case along with driver—Supreme Court declined to interfere in the conviction and sentence awarded to both the accused—Appeal was dismissed.

2010  SCMR  27   SUPREME-COURT

ISMAEEL VS State

Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29(d)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Official witnesses—Recovery from vehicle—Proof of—Shifting of onus to prove—Chars weighing 39 kilograms and opium weighing 3 kilograms was recovered from inside four doors of the car which was being driven by accused—Trial Court convicted the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, which conviction and sentence was maintained by High Court—Validity—Mere fact that prosecution witnesses belonged to Anti-Narcotics Force, by itself could not be considered valid reason to discard their statements—Chars and opium recovered from four doors of the car which was being driven by accused coupled with the fact that only accused was present in the car, therefore, courts below were justified to give finding against accused regarding his guilt—In case of transportation or possession of narcotics, technicalities of procedural nature or otherwise should be overlooked in the larger interest of country, if the case stood otherwise proved—Approach of Court should be dynamic and pragmatic in approaching true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions while deciding such type of cases—Court should consider entire material as a whole and if it was convinced that the case was proved then conviction should be recorded notwithstanding procedural defects—Chemical Examiner’s reports regarding Chars and opium were sufficient to prove that substance recovered from accused was Chars which could be used to cause intoxication—Prosecution discharged its initial onus while proving that substance was recovered from him whereas accused failed to discharge his burden in terms of S.29 (d) of Control of Narcotic Substances. Act, 1997—Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court—Leave to appeal was refused.

2010  PLD  1052   SUPREME-COURT

KASHIF AMIR VS State

S.29—Presumption from possession of illicit articles—Burden of proof—Once the prosecution has, prima facie, established its case, then under S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, burden shifts upon the accused to prove contrary to the plea of prosecution.

2010  PLD  1052   SUPREME-COURT

KASHIF AMIR VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Transportation of Narcotics—Accused being driver of the vehicle was incharge of the same and all the articles lying therein would be under his control and possession—In the present case from the secret cavities of the car 193 packets of “Charas” and 5 packets of opium weighing one kilogram each, were recovered on search—Samples had been drawn from all the packets—Accused had not challenged the recovery of the “Charas” and Opium before any court—Case of accused that he was innocent as he had no knowledge about the transportation of the narcotics in the car by concealing the same in the especially designed cavities did not inspire confidence—Prosecution had established the guilt of accused—Accused had failed to discharge his burden by proving to the contrary in term of S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Prosecution case against accused, thus, stood proved—Leave to appeal was declined to accused accordingly.

2010  PCrLJ  1042   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ADALAT KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Both prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length by the defence counsel, but nothing had been gained in favour of accused—Account furnished by the prosecution witnesses was credible and consistent with each other on all material aspects of the case, with the exception of minor discrepancies which were natural—No material discrepancy or improvement was made by said witnesses—Contention of counsel for accused was that accused were bona fide transporters/driver and cleaner of vehicle and that they had no knowledge about the hiding of illicit Hashish—Neither accused persons disputed the recovery of Hashish from the vehicle being driver and cleaner of the vehicle, nor the same was disputed before the court—Primary duty of the prosecution was to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and its burden was not shifted under the presumption contained in S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—If, however, a plea was taken by accused, it was a statutory burden under S.29 of said Act to be discharged through cogent evidence in order to prove him innocent—Accused, in the present case, had only denied the charge, pleaded innocence and stated that their vehicle was hired by the transport company—Accused had not produced any evidence in their defence which could establish that the alleged bags were loaded in their vehicle by their co-accused—No substance was found in the plea taken by accused persons and plea taken by them in their defence was neither sufficient nor enough to exonerate them from the charge—Accused having failed to discharge the statutory burden, conviction and sentence of accused persons, were upheld and maintained.

2010  MLD  1453   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

FAHIM SHAH VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 29—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Accused could not prove any motive or ill-will to falsely involve him in such a heinous offence—Accused had made no endeavour to rebut the prosecution case by discharging his burden under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Mere denial of charge and pleading innocence by accused without substantiating, his plea through cogent evidence was not sufficient to secure acquittal—No major material contradictions were found in statements of prosecution witnesses, who had fully corroborated each other on material aspect, such as recovery and arrest of accused on the spot—Delay of about three days in sending the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory, was insignificant, in the facts and circumstances of the case—Prosecution witnesses were subjected to very lengthy cross-examination, but no questions were asked as to whether the case property produced in the court was tampered with or not, or that the samples thereof were not sent to Chemical Examiner for testing purposes—Counsel for accused had contended that prosecution had failed to specify as to whether recovered charas was in crude or purified form—Contention of counsel of accused was repelled as neither such question was put to any prosecution witness, nor the form of charas whether crude or purified would take out the same out of the ambit of definition of `Charas’—In view of quantity of recovered charas, which was more than 10 Kg. sentence awarded to accused could not be reduced—Court had no jurisdiction to award lesser sentence than the one mentioned in the statute—Judgment of the Trial Court which was based on correct appreciation of law and proper evaluation of evidence, was maintained.

2010  MLD  481   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN VS State

Ss. 9 & 29—Possessing narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Both the accused persons were travelling in the car from which 18,500 grams of charas concealed beneath the front and rear seats were recovered in their presence—Prosecution had established the charge against both the accused by producing reliable and trustworthy evidence at the trial, where all the witnesses had given almost consistent statements on salient features of the case with regard to interception of the car, the recovery of charas and its weight, with minor contradiction, which could be attributed to memory lapses due to the passage of time—Chemical Examiner had returned the report holding that the contraband was Charas—Confessional statement of co-accused, who was driver of the vehicle in question, was inculpatory as he had admitted that he was transporting the charas for acquitted accused for which he was paid—Co-accused had admitted quantity to the extent of one K.G. which was under his possession and control—Confession of said accused was though exculpatory in nature, however, careful scrutiny would show that he too had given sharp twist to the story in the clever manner shifting the burden to other accused—Principle that statement/confession of an accused was to be taken in toto and no pick and choose process was to be adopted, was applicable only in those cases where the other evidence of the prosecution was disbelieved/discarded by the court which was not the case; because not only huge quantity of charas weighing 18,500 grams was recovered from the motor car which was at the relevant time in active and exclusive control of both accused persons, but also that three important. witnesses to whom no mala fide, ill-will or personal grudge had been attributed, had given evidence against accused persons; and their testimony got support from the inculpatory part of the confessional statement of both accused persons—Under the provisions of S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the recovery of contraband was made from a private car which was by then in control of the two accused, the burden to explain the possession whether actual or constructive was on accused to discharge, but neither they had led any evidence in defence nor had appeared in disproof of the prosecution evidence, under S.340(2), Cr.P.C.—Charge laid upon accused had remained unrebutted—Prosecution having been able in proving the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, Trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing them to life imprisonment.

2009  PCrLJ  808   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 29 & 51(1)—Bail, refusal of—Heroin weighing ten kilograms was allegedly recovered from the possession of each accused—Case of co-accused, already granted bail, was different from the present accused, whose case was of complete denial—Presumption under S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for having committed the offence, no doubt, was rebutable, but accused would have to dislodge the same—Discrepancies pointed out in the statements of prosecution, witnesses could not be considered in detail as deeper appreciation of evidence was not required at bail stage—Prima facie, sufficient evidence was available to connect the accused with the commission of the crime—Woman accused could not be allowed bail under the fourth proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C. on account of the bar contained in S.51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being charged with an offence punishable with death and even otherwise her case was not fit for grant of bail—Reasonable grounds existed to believe the accused being guilty fully attracting the said bar of S.51(1) of the said Act—Accused were refused bail in’ circumstances.

2007  YLR  904   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SABIR KHAN VS State

–Ss. 9 & 29—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420, 170 & 171—Appreciation of evidence-Both prosecution witnesses seemed to he independent witnesses having no reason to falsely implicate accused in the case—No material discrepancy was found at all i

2007  YLR  373   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

GHUNCHA GUL VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 25, 29 & 48—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—-Search proceedings—Both prosecution witnesses were consistent on material points and no contradiction whatsoever could be pointe

2007  MLD  501   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUNIR KHAN VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 29—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5—Appreciation of evidence—Both prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination, but defence could not shatter their veracity o

2007  MLD  408   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. NOOR BIBI VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Prosecution witnesses had supported the recovery of 6900 grams of Charas from the possession of accused—Both said witnesses had demonstrated complete unanimity on material points

2007  PLD  135   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AAMIR KHAN VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution witnesses who were marginal witnesses of memo. of recovery through which contraband charas was taken into possession and Investigating Officer, were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-exam

2007  YLR  1601   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NAZAR HUSSAIN VS State

—S.29—Presumption from possession of illicit articles—Onus on prosecution as well as on accused—Prosecution by virtue of S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has only to show by evidence that accused has dealt with the narcotic su

2007  YLR  1601   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NAZAR HUSSAIN VS State

—Ss.9(c), 6 & 29—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution witnesses were unanimous on salient features and material aspects of the case, who had categorically stated that the accused was the Driver of the Truck from secret cavity of which 560 Kg of “Cha

2007  YLR  1156   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GHULAM ALI MOGHIMI VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 29—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.117—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Delay of three months in sending case property to Chemical Examiner despite putting specific question in that regard, delay had not been explained by

2007  YLR  3096   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BILAL VS State

—-S.29—Presumption from possession of illicit articles—Burden of proof –Prosecution by virtue of 5.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has only to show by evidence that the accused has dealt with the narcotic substance or has physic

2007  YLR  3096   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BILAL VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 29—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution witnesses had withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing had come on record to discard their evidence—Report of Chemical Examiner regarding samples of “Charas” was positive—“Charas” we

2006  PLD  39   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 25, 29, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103 & 516-A—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution, in order to prove apprehension of accused and recovery of Charas and opium from the secret cavities of the car, had produced two wi

2006  PCRLJ  846   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

IQBAL KHAN VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 21, 25, 29, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.75—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution, in order to establish its case had produced two witnesses—Defence could not prove as to why police wo

2006  PCRLJ  316   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

FIDA MUHAMMAD VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 29—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution had proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and had successfully discharged its burden through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence—Accused was supposed to have shown that Cha

2006  MLD  1121   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD ALI VS State

—-Ss. 9(c) & 29—Presumption of possession of illegal articles—Where prosecution was made under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, S.29 of said Act there was presumption of possession of illicit articles, unless the person prosecuted, rebutted

2006  MLD  1121   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD ALI VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Both complainant and other prosecution witness had supported recovery of 129 kilograms Charas from one motor car and 322.400 kilograms from the other—Both wit

2006  MLD  361   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. GRANA VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.52 & 103—Appreciation of evidence—Report of Chemical Examiner was in positive and all prosecution witnesses were consistent on material points and no contradiction whatsoever could be poin

2006  PLD  74   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD DAUD VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 21, 22, 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103 & 537—Appreciation of evidence—Search and seizure proceedings—Prosecution had established factum of recovery beyond shadow of doubt—Arrest, seizure and investigation by an i

2005  SCMR  1487   SUPREME-COURT

IKRAM HUSSAIN VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 29(d)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)—Re­appraisal of evidence—Presumption—Failure to discharge the burden of proof of recovery against accused—Recovery of one kilogram and forty grams of Charas–Accused was employee

2004  PLD  829   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

REHMAT SHAH AFRIDI VS THE STATE

—-S. 29—Presumption from possession of illicit articles—Intent and import-In order to raise such a presumption in law, the initial burden continues to be on the prosecution and it is only when the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden o

2003  YLR  1775   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABDUL MAJID VS THE STATE

—-S. 9(c), 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Statements of Investigating Officer and other Police Officials were corroborated by driver of bus from where Charas was recovered—Driver of the bus, who was t

2003  PCRLJ  680   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

JOHAR ALI VS THE STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S. 29—Presumption arising from possession of illicit articles–Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, does not absolve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove its case beyond doubt—Burden shifts to the accused only after the prosecution has established the recovery beyond doubt.

2002  PLD  58   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

MEHRAB KHAN VS THE STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S. 29—Burden to prove offence- Recovery —Possession–Presumption—Presumption from possession of illicit articles—Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, does not absolve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove its case beyond doubt—Burden is shifted to the accused only after the prosecution has established the recovery beyond reasonable doubt.

2002  PCRLJ  1402   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MAHMOOD KHAN VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9, 29, 35 & 36—Appreciation of evidence—Sending sample of narcotic substances for chemical analysis—Provisions of Ss.35 & 36 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not specify any particular quantity of recovered substance to be se

2002  MLD  1982   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

WAJID ALI SHAH VS THE STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S. 29—Presumption of possession of illicit articles—Burden of proof—Burden is shifted to the accused only when the prosecution establishes the recovery beyond doubt—Section 29 of the Control, Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, does not absolve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove its case beyond doubt.

2002  PCRLJ  453   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NAZAR HUSSAIN VS THE STATE

—Ss. 497, 103, 59, 154 & 156(2)—Control of Norcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b), 21, 25, 761 29 & 51—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4—Bail—Accused was allegedly apprehended red-handed by the police party

1998  PCRLJ  2086   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

NASRULLAH VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9, 29 & 21—Appreciation of evidence— “Controlled substances”—Connotation—” Opium baked” being covered by the “controlled substances” was cognizable by the Special Court constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Since