Q:

Any judgement about conviction in 9c cnsa case in which complaint stated different date from date of occurenc

Thursday, July 9th, 2020 by Zafaralibaloch63

Answers

  1. 2016 PCrLJ 265
    FAROOQ KHAN Vs State

    Ss. 6, 9(c) & 25—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40—Possessing and trafficking of Narcotics —Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—All three prosecution witnesses, who were Police Officials, had fully supported the prosecution case—Said witnesses, had been cross-examined at considerable length, but no discrepancy causing reasonable doubt in the veracity of prosecution case was found—Evidence of prosecution witnesses, over the recovery of narcotic substance from the house in question had not been shattered to such extent that conviction and sentence awarded to accused, could be declared illegal and set aside—Minor variations, though did occur in the evidence of witnesses, but no contradictions worth giving benefit of reasonable doubt to accused existed—Plea of false implication of accused at the instance of DSP, against whom accused had moved application for registration of FIR s, could not be given much weight, as said DSP was neither the witness, nor had conducted any investigation in the case—Said DSP had not played any part to contrive things against accused—Nothing concrete to suggest false implication of accused at the hands of said DSP, was found on record—SHO concerned had submitted criminal record of showing as many as 20 criminal cases of Different kinds registered at various Police Stations against accused and his brothers—Objection of accused over the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station to register the case against accused, was also without any merits—Accused was aware of the nature, and exact time and date of incident reported against him—Stringent compliance of S.103, Cr.P.C., had been dispensed with in terms of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—People fearing for their life, did not come forward to give evidence against drug barons—Information disclosed by accused led to discovery of narcotic substance, was relevant as per scheme of Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and could be relied upon—Prosecution case was about recovery of 7 packets of charas, each having rods and each weighing 1250 grams—Out of those 7 packets, one packet individually consisting 100 rods, was separated, sealed and subsequently sent for examination to Chemical Expert, the report of which had come in positive—Regarding 6 remaining packets, the prosecution could not bring any evidence to establish the same to be narcotic substance punishable under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Prosecution was bound to take sample from every packet for examination to prove it to be narcotic substance—Accused, was liable for possessing 1250 grams of charas and 1000 grams of heroin—Conviction and sentence for possessing charas exceeding 1 Kilogram and upto 2 Kilograms was R.I. for 4 years, 6 months, and fine of Rs.20,000 in default S.I. for 6 months, and for possessing heroin exceeding 600 grams and up to 1000 grams, the sentence of R.I. for one year, 10 months and fine of Rs. 150,000 in default S.I. for 5 months—Same punishment for accused, would meet the ends of justice—Accused had served sentence of 6 years, 11 months and 14 days, and had earned remission of 2 years, 1 month and 19 days—Conviction and sentence of 10 years and fine of Rs.500,000 awarded to accused, was modified to the period already undergone by him, in circumstances.