| Case ID |
1003ccff-8454-49c8-b29f-ac728db629de |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Cr.A. No. 246-M with Cr. M. 244-M of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 14, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Trial Court. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as there were significant discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, all of whom were police officials. The court emphasized the importance of involving independent witnesses in narcotics cases, especially when prior spy information was used to justify the police action. The failure to have a Sub-Inspector conduct the investigation was also a critical factor in the decision to acquit the accused. |
| Summary |
In the case of Siraj Ud Din vs. State through Additional Advocate General, the Peshawar High Court examined the legality of the conviction under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The case revolved around the recovery of 1069 grams of charas from the accused, which the prosecution claimed was obtained through proper procedure. However, the court found that the recovery was conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector, which violated the mandatory provisions of the law. The decision highlighted the necessity for proper procedural adherence in narcotics cases, particularly the requirement of having an officer of at least Sub-Inspector rank for such operations. The court also pointed out the lack of independent witnesses, which is essential in cases involving police recovery of narcotics, as it raises questions regarding the authenticity of the prosecution's claims. The judgment referred to precedents that emphasize the importance of credible witness testimonies in narcotics cases. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the accused, granting him acquittal due to the prosecution's failure to meet the burden of proof, thus underscoring the legal principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN,
JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHFOOZ
|
| Lawyers |
Qazi Farid Ahmad for Appellant,
Rahim Shah, Astt: Advocate General for Respondents
|
| Petitioners |
Siraj Ud Din
|
| Respondents |
State through Additional Advocate General and Others
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 2446,
2018 MLD 1917
|
| Other Citations |
Shahid Mehmood v. The State 2016 PCr.LJ 1234,
Muhammad Younis v. The State 2008 YLR 1562,
Muhammad Yasir v. The State 2004 YLR 1303
|
| Laws Involved |
Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997
|
| Sections |
9(c),
21,
22
|