Mumtaz Ahmad vs The State
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, which convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 12 kilograms of poppy straw. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of the contraband beyond a reasonable doubt, given inconsistencies in the physical state of the recovered evidence. The Court observed a critical contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witness (PW-4), who admitted during cross-examination that the poppy straw recovered was in a grinded form, whereas the substance produced before the Court was in a solid state. The Court held that this discrepancy fundamentally undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ruling that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the recovery of contraband is rendered doubtful by contradictory evidence, the prosecution fails to discharge its burden of proof, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
- Does a material contradiction between the form of the recovered contraband and the evidence produced in court entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Is the prosecution's case rendered doubtful when the physical state of the recovered narcotics changes between the time of recovery and the time of production in court?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 9(c), CNSA, 1997 and sentenced him to four years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in case of default in payment of fine he would have to further undergo S.I. For six months.
2. Precisely, the prosecution ease is that on spy information the police raided the shop of the accused applicant. He was apprehended and on query he disclosed his name Mumtaz son of Shafi and on search of his shop poppy straw bag blue in colour was recovered which was found 12 K.G. 10 grams was separated for chemical analysis. Both samples and bulk were made into sealed parcels and were taken into custody. Rs. 60/- was also recovered. The case was registered accordingly.
The case was sent up to the Court after due investigation. Copies under section 265-C, Cr.P.C, was delivered to the appellant' accused. Charge was framed. Prosecution evidence was recorded.
Statement of the accused appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C, was examined. The learned Trial Court passed the above-said conviction and sentence.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant argued with reference to the statement of PW-4 that the recovery was allegedly effected of Poppy straw in grinded form whereas quantity produced before the Court was in solid state. We have consulted the statement of PW-4 who in his cross-examination stated "the Poppy straw in grinded form and not in solid state, It is correct that today I have examined it and it is solid state." This fact knocks down the prosecution case at its bottom. The very recovery is doubtful. The benefit of slightest doubt goes to the appellant- accused.
5. For what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to, prove its case. Resultantly, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court and direct acquittal of the appellant:accused. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.