6. Prohibition of possession of narcotic drugs
etc.--No one shall produce, manufacture, extract, prepare, possess, offer for
sale, sell, purchase, distribute, deliver on any terms whatsoever, transport,
despatch, any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance,
except for medical, scientific or industrial purposes in the manner and subject
to such conditions as may be specified by or under this Act or any other law
for the time being in force.
COMMENTARY
Superdari
of motorcycle.
Evidence on record had shown that alleged narcotic was not recovered from
motorcycle, but same was recovered from the persons of accused. Trial Court was
directed to release motorcycle on superdari. 2002 MLD 1944.
Quashing
of proceedings.
Plea of double jeopardy. Trial of
accused under CNSA, 1997 after their trial under the Customs Act, 1969.
The Offence of smuggling and carrying of narcotics being one and the same, the
second trial was barred in view of Art. 13 of the Constitution, S. 26 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 and S. 403 of Cr.P.C, 1898. Case pending against the
accused was quashed. 2000 PCr.LJ 1002.
Grant
of bail.
Recovery of Charas. FIR registered u/S. 3/4,
Prohibition Order, 1979 r/w S. 6/9, CNSA, 1997 and the challan has not yet been
submitted. Where an offence is punishable under two
different provisions of law, the law enacting lesser punishment is to be
pressed into service. 2000 PCr.LJ 96 and 1084.
Protection
against double punishment. Accused after having been convicted and
sentenced u/S. 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 was
also convicted and sentenced u/S. 9 of CNSA, 1997. Offence committed by the
accused before enforcement of CNSA, 1997. Accused had already been repatriated
to his own country after serving his sentence under the Customs Act, 1969.
Conviction and sentence of accused under the Customs Act, 1969 and CNSA, 1997
were set aside. PLD 2001 Kar. 283.
Contention that
narcotics were recovered from secret cavities of truck loaded with bricks and
appellant had no conscious knowledge of it. It was asserted that in absence of
mens rea appellant could not be held guilty of offence of smuggling narcotics.
Learned counsel went on to say that owner and conductor of truck were let off
by raiding party and appellant was made victim of circumstances on account of
his inability to grease palm of police officials. Submission of learned counsel
is not tenable. There is nothing on file in support of plea taken by appellant.
Mere assertion of appellant that he was totally unaware of contraband lying in
truck, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate same, is of no
avail. It is difficult to believe that huge quantity of narcotics was concealed
in truck and driver remained ignorant of it. Appellant was fully aware and he
had knowledge about narcotics in question lying in secret cavities of truck. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (
Technically, there is a
room for presumption that prosecution witnesses not examined would not have
supported prosecution case. In evidence of prosecution witnesses examined,
there are some contradictions. Some of them are, of course, material.
Complainant/ I.O. said that under his dictation mashirnama was prepared by
Inspector; one mashir stated that mashirnama was prepared by complainant in his
own hand writing. One of two prosecution witnesses is definitely telling lie,
and Inspector has not been examined. One of two prosecution witnesses is thus
unreliable but he may be either of two. This renders whole prosecution case
doubtful. Accused/appellant cannot be deprived of benefit of doubt. Counsel for
State, also, does not support conviction. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (
From the contradictory
evidence on record it would hardly appeal to a prudent mind, that all three
brothers were taking away more than 100 kg. of Charas
in their hands in the busy morning hours of day. Prosecution
evidence cannot be termed as truthful and free from doubt. Prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (
Leave to appeal was
granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether offences for which accused
persons were being tried under Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14 & 15 of Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were same for which they had earlier been tried
under S. 156(1)(8) of Customs Act, 1969, as such, was violative of Art. 13 of Constitution. PLJ 2001 SC 1346 =
2001 SCMR 1083.
Prosecution evidence is
consistent, confidence inspiring and not discrepant. Again, nothing been
brought on record to suggest that appellant had no knowledge about illicit
substance and he had no concern with it. It cannot be said or conceived that
raiding party would be having capacity to manage or plant a huge quantity of
narcotics owing to enmity or ill will against accused. Defence plea put to
prosecution witnesses at the face of it appears to be highly misconceived and
even improbable in facts and circumstances of case. PLJ 2002
Cr.C. (