Delay in sending samples

2023 MLD 1831 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Recovery of narcotic substanceAppreciation of evidenceChain of custody, breaking ofDelay in sending samplesEffectCharas weighing 2050 grams was allegedly recovered form accusedTrial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for 5-1/2 yearsValidity

Contraband material was dispatched to laboratory two days after its recovery but no explanation whatsoever was furnished by prosecution that where material was kept for the intervening period

Such fact led to adverse inference against prosecution about safe custody of Charas

All three improbabilities rendered entire claim of police party doubtful

When chain of custody was broken, report of chemical examiner had lost its sanctity and could not be relied upon safely to convict accused

Accused person is presumed to be innocent unless and unless he is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt

Such presumption of innocence continues until prosecution has succeeded in proving charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legally admissible, confidence-inspiring, trustworthy and reliable evidence

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused as prosecution failed to establish guilt against him beyond shadow of doubt and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2022 YLR 422 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Ss.9 (c) & 36Recovery of narcotic substanceAppreciation of evidenceChemical analysisDelay in sending samplesQuantity of narcoticsDeterminationCharas (Gardah) weighing 3500 grams was alleged to have been recovered from accusedTrial Court convicted accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for five yearsValidityFour packets of Charas weighing 875 grams each were alleged to have been recovered from possession of accusedPackets were sent to Chemical Examiner after an unexplained delay of about one month and nine days

Chemical Examiner did not state in his report that from total 3500 grams of Charas (Gardah) how much Charas in purified condition could have been extracted

Such lapse on the part of Chemical Examiner could not be ignored lightly and benefit of such doubt was to be given to accused as a matter of right

High Court maintained conviction awarded to accused by Trial Court but sentence was reduced from five years to two years imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2020 YLR 2538 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Rr. 4 & 5Dispatch of sample for test or analysis, examination of sampleDelay in sending samplesEffect

Failure to follow Rr. 4 & 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, does not render search, seizure and arrest under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 an absolute nullity or make the entire case doubtful, except for the consequences provided in the Rules.

2020 YLR 2538 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Rr. 4 & 5Dispatch of sample for test or analysis, examination of sampleDelay in sending samplesEffect

Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 places no bar on the Investigating Officer to send samples beyond seventy-two hours of the seizure, receive the report of Forensic Laboratory after fifteen days and place the report so received before the Trial Court, as the same are directory and not mandatory and cannot control the substantive provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2018 YLRN 9 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Rr. 4 & 5Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)Possession and trafficking of narcoticDelay in sending samplesNon-compliance of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001Effect

Rules 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, were directory and not mandatory in nature

Mere fact that samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory beyond the prescribed period of 72 hours would not be fatal unless accused showed that the samples were tampered or he was otherwise prejudiced by the delay.

2017 MLD 1514 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001, R.4(2)Recovery of narcoticsAppreciation of evidenceDelay in sending samplesCharas weighing Five-kilograms was recovered from accused

Plea raised by accused was that charas was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after seven days of recovery; that Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, described that contraband substance should have been sent to Chemical Examiner within seventy two hours of recovery and that positive report could not be relied upon on account of delay

Validity

Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analaysts) Rules, 2001 had placed no bar on the Investigating Officer to send the samples beyond seventy two hours of the seizure

Said Rules were directory and not mandatory in nature

Failure to follow the Rules would not render the search, seizure and arrest under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 an absolute nullity and made the entire prosecution case doubtful

Delay of seven days in sending the charas to the Chemical Examiner for expert opinion could not be treated fatal for the prosecution case in absence of objection regarding the same having been tampered with or manipulated

No such allegation with the case property was on record

Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 1665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Recovery of narcotic substanceAppreciation of evidenceDelay in sending samplesPolice witnessesEffectCharas weighing 9 Maunds and 30 kilograms (390 kgs) was recovered from vehicle in which all three accused were presentTrial Court convicted all three accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life

Plea raised by accused was that there was unexplained delay of four days in sending samples to laboratory and all recovery witnesses were police officials

Validity

Held, it was not requirement of law that whole contraband material should be sent for chemical examination for opinion of Chemical Examiner, only a portion was to be sent

Delay of four days in sending samples could not be treated as fatal in absence of objections regarding the same having been tampered with or manipulated

Sample was sent to Chemical Examiner after four days of recovery but from evidence of complainant and investigating officer no question was put to any of them as to where the sample was lying during those four days

Such delay in sending samples was immaterial and did not adversely affect prosecution case

Though prosecution witnesses had given different weight of allegedly recovered contraband material than the one disclosed in F.I.R. but on the basis of such difference in weight alone it could not be said that no recovery was effected from accused and they could not claim acquittal in such a heinous offence involving capital punishment

Evidence of police officials could not be disbelieved as a whole merely because of their being police officials until and unless some mala fide or enmity was brought on record to indicate false implication of accused in case, which factor was missing

Trial Court did not commit any illegality while convicting accused persons

High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 MLD 1527 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.9(c)Possession of narcoticsAppreciation of evidenceDelay in sending samplesBenefit of doubt

Accused was arrested red-handed for possessing Chars and was convicted by Trial Court under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997, and sentenced to two years of imprisonment along with fine

Validity

Alleged contraband was recovered on 22-12-2011 and sample was received by hand in Forensic Science Laboratory on 9-1-2012

Delay in sending alleged sample to Laboratory was a defect in prosecution case and it was shrouded in mystery as to in whose possession alleged sample remained from 22-12-2011 to 9-1-2012

Case of prosecution was doubtful and benefit of any doubt in the links of prosecution case would go to accused

High Court maintained conviction of accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 but reduced the sentence and amount of fine

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2013 PCrLJ 454 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Rr. 4 & 5Delay in sending samplesDispatching of samples beyond 72 hours, was not a sine qua non

Mere delay in sending the samples to the Laboratory, was not at all fatal to the prosecution case because Rr.4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, had placed no bar on the Investigating Officer to send the samples beyond 72 hours of seizure or recovery of the contraband

Provisions in that respect, were directory and not mandatory, and could not substitute the substantive provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Analysis Rules, 2001

Non-compliance of said Rr.4 & 5 of the Rules would not frustrate the very purpose absolute nullity.

2013 PCrLJ 635 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R.4(2)Possession of narcoticsAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtDelay in sending samplesSafe custody of samples doubtfulPolice apprehended the accused on receipt of spy information and allegedly found 1200 grams of charas in his possessionTrial Court convicted and sentenced the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997ValidityDelay of six (6) days in dispatch of samples to Chemical Analyzer

Although R.4(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, regarding dispatch of samples for analysis by not later than 72 hours of their seizure, was not mandatory but samples should be dispatched as early as possible unless for reasons to be recorded

Evidence of person (police official) who had the samples in his possession for six (6) days should have been recorded by the prosecution to show whether the samples were in safe custody or not

Sealed parcel containing sample was not de-sealed before any prosecution witness (police officials) and without seeing the actual condition of samples in the parcel, all the prosecution witnesses recognized the same as charas recovered from the possession of the accused

Property (narcotic) was produced in court after chemical examination by the Chemical Analyzer and presumption could be drawn that seals thereon belonged to Chemical Examiner's office but prosecution witnesses (police officials) had deposed that it bore their seal and signatures

Investigation was conducted dishonestly which rendered the entire prosecution case doubtful

Accused was extended benefit of doubt and was acquitted

Appeal was allowed accordingly.