2022 PLP 1422 (SCMR)
ISHAQ — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 PLP 1422 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Tariq Masood, Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ |
| Parties | ISHAQ — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 1422 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 1422 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Tariq Masood, Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 1422 (SCMR) (ISHAQ — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Qaiser Khan v. The State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar 2021 SCMR 363; Mst. Razia Sultana v. The State and another 2019 SCMR 1300; The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others 2018 SCMR 2039; Ikramullah and others v. The State 2015 SCMR 1002 and Amjad Ali v. The State 2012 SCMR 577 ref.
- 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned state counsel and perusing the available record along with the impugned judgment with their assistance, it has been observed by us that the vehicle from which the narcotics were recovered was never produced before the court with a lame excuse that the vehicle was burnt but even no part etc. thereof was produced. We also observe that the ownership of the said vehicle was never ascertained by the prosecution. The most important thing we observe is that neither the safe custody nor the safe transmission of the sealed sample parcels to the concerned laboratory was established by the prosecution because neither the Moharrar nor the Constable concerned (FC-3746) who deposited the said parcels in the concerned laboratory was produced. It is also a circumstance that recovery was effected on 17.07.2010 whereas the sample parcels were received in the said laboratory on 20.07.2010 and prosecution is silent as to where remained these sample parcels during this period, meaning thereby that the element of tampering with is quite apparent in this case. This Court in the cases of Qaiser Khan v. The State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar (2021 SCMR 363), Mst. Razia Sultana v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 1300), The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others (2018 SCMR 2039), Ikramullah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002) and Amjad Ali v. The State (2012 SCMR 577) has held that in a case containing the above mentioned defect on the part of the prosecution it cannot be held with any degree of certainty the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against an accused person beyond any reasonable doubt.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 30.10.2014 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Criminal Appeal No. 560-P of 2012)
S. 9(c)
Possession and transportation of narcotics
Vehicle from which the narcotics were recovered was never produced before the court with a lame excuse that the vehicle was burnt but even no part etc. thereof was produced
Ownership of the said vehicle was never ascertained by the prosecution
Neither the safe custody nor the safe transmission of the sealed sample parcels to the concerned laboratory was established by the prosecution because neither the Moharrar nor the Constable concerned who deposited the said parcels in the concerned laboratory was produced
Sample parcels were received in the forensic laboratory three days after the recovery of narcotics and prosecution was silent as to where these sample parcels remained during this period, meaning thereby that the element of tampering was quite apparent in the present case
Appeal was allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt.
S. 9
Prosecution failing to establish safe custody and safe transmission of samples from the police to the Forensic Science Laboratory
In a case containing the said defect on the part of the prosecution it cannot be held with any degree of certainty the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against an accused person beyond any reasonable doubt. Qaiser Khan v. The State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar 2021 SCMR 363; Mst. Razia Sultana v. The State and another 2019 SCMR 1300; The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others 2018 SCMR 2039; Ikramullah and others v. The State 2015 SCMR 1002 and Amjad Ali v. The State 2012 SCMR 577 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.
Criminal M.A. No. 1305 of 2016 For the reason set out in the instant application for condonation of delay, same is allowed and the delay is condoned. Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2020
2. The appellant Ishaq faced trial in case FIR No. 562 dated 17.07.2010, offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ('Act, 1997') registered at Police Station Badhber, Peshawar. After a full-fledged trial, learned Judge Special Court, Peshawar vide judgment dated 15.11.2012 convicted the appellant under section 9(c) of the Act, 1997 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, appellant filed a Criminal Appeal before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 30.10.2014. Hence, this appeal by leave of the court granted on 09.11.2020.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned state counsel and perusing the available record along with the impugned judgment with their assistance, it has been observed by us that the vehicle from which the narcotics were recovered was never produced before the court with a lame excuse that the vehicle was burnt but even no part etc. thereof was produced. We also observe that the ownership of the said vehicle was never ascertained by the prosecution. The most important thing we observe is that neither the safe custody nor the safe transmission of the sealed sample parcels to the concerned laboratory was established by the prosecution because neither the Moharrar nor the Constable concerned (FC-3746) who deposited the said parcels in the concerned laboratory was produced. It is also a circumstance that recovery was effected on 17.07.2010 whereas the sample parcels were received in the said laboratory on 20.07.2010 and prosecution is silent as to where remained these sample parcels during this period, meaning thereby that the element of tampering with is quite apparent in this case. This Court in the cases of Qaiser Khan v. The State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar (2021 SCMR 363), Mst. Razia Sultana v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 1300), The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others (2018 SCMR 2039), Ikramullah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002) and Amjad Ali v. The State (2012 SCMR 577) has held that in a case containing the above mentioned defect on the part of the prosecution it cannot be held with any degree of certainty the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against an accused person beyond any reasonable doubt.
4. For the forgoing reasons, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant Ishaq, while giving him benefit of doubt, is acquitted of his charge in the instant case. He be released from jail forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. MWA/I-7/SC Appeal allowed.