Narcotics possession & Recovery :– Prosecution witnesses have supported prosecution story and this court have not found any material infirmity in their evidence to hold otherwise but that from evidence it proves the possession –Even the recovery of narcotics during the search of the house has not been denied by the appellant – his plea is how ever to the extent that he has got no concern with seized narcotics -Appellant has Failed to furnished reasonable explanation for the same and the efface story is not worth if reliance-Nothing has been brought on record which can indicate that he has falsely been involved in this case – Record does not reveal and mala fides of the police officials to show that they have deposed against the appellant maliciously-Appellant has also failed to discharge burden as per – provisions u/S. 29 of the Act -As far as quantum of punishment awarded by Trial court is concerned same is not in accordance with provisions of S. 9(c ) of the Act as the quantity exceeds to kg-Appellant court is not vested with any suo motu authority or jurisdiction for enhancing sentence during appeal filed by convict especially without giving prior notice and providing fair opportunity-Appeal accordingly dismissed. 2000 PLR (Qta) 305
Narcotics, Possession and recovery of -In criminal cases burden of proving its case rests on the prosecution which is duty bound to prove its case, against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt-Then duty does not change or vary even in a case in which no defence plea is taken by the accused-Defence plea is always to be considered in juxtaposition with the prosecution case, with the final analysis, if defence plea is proved or accepted then the prosecution case would stand discredited-In the present case the defence has been able to put a doubt to the prosecution case and the prosecution has not been able to establish the exclusive possession of the seized goods not the recovery in view of material contradiction between the statements of police personnel-Prosecution has failed to establish their case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt-Appeal allowed.