Recoveries allegedly effected in violation of S. 103 Cr.P.C.–Such allegation was devoid of force inasmuch as, recovery of narcotic substances had been made in terms of S. 25 of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which being a special statute excludes application of S. 103 of Cr.P.C.–However, Police officials being competent witnesses their evidence cannot be excluded merely for the reason that they were Police employees. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 858
Recovery of narcotics from a running vehicle or made on a highway or roadside-Validity-Provision of S. 25, Control of Narcotic substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of s. 103, Cr. P.C -Where recovery was made on a highway or roadside or from a running vehicle, the provision of S. 103, Cr. P. C. were also not applicable, 2000 P.Cr.L.J 907
10. S. 103 Criminal Procedure Code, 1898–Contention that provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C. were seriously violated on account of non-association of private person to witness recovery–Further contended that truck was apprehended at a thickly populated place i.e.. Gulshan Abad check post and services of independent witnesses could have been secured without any excuse–Submission of learned counsel is misconceived, firstly for the reason that provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C. has been excluded under provisions of Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and provisions of Section 20 of Act are directory in nature, therefore, its non-compliance cannot be considered as a strong ground for holding trial of appellant as bad in eyes of law whereas on other it is not denied that main aim and object of enacting of Section 103 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that search and recovery was conducted honestly and fairly and to exclude any possibility of concoction and transgression–It never meant to disbelieve statements of official witnesses under any circumstances–Official witnesses are as good as private witnesses–Contention repelled. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 865 Provision of Section 103, Cr.P.C. has no application to narcotic cases as per provision contained under Section 25 of Act–Applicability of provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C. has been excluded in view of provision of Section 25 of Act- PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 886 Whether recovery made without complying with mandatory provisions of Section 103, Cr.p.C. will become doubtful–Question of–Held: In view of provisions of Section 25 of Act, such search could not become invalid and fatal to prosecution case. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Quetta) 1372 Recovery of huge quantity of narcotic substance from appellants–Report of chemical analyst being positive corroborates evidence of witnesses of recovery–No prejudice was shown to have been caused to appellants–Appellants have failed to make out any case for interference in impugned judgment. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 858
This site is protected by wp-copyrightpro.com
Translate »Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.