Possessing and trafficking narcotic

2019 PLD 96 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Rr. 5 & 6Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.36 & 9Possessing and trafficking narcoticReport of government analystReport of result of test or analysisScopeAccused was charged for possession and transporting of charas weighing 45 kgs

Forensic Science Laboratory's (FSL) report was in violation of S. 36, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Rr. 5 & 6 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 as the same bore only one signature of the Federal Government Analyst, while S.36 of the Act and Rr. 5 & 6 prescribed Form II, which stipulated the signatures of two authorized officers of the Laboratory

Report was silent about the necessary protocols, the test applied and the result

Neither any protocol was mentioned in the report nor any test was referred to on the basis whereof the Chemical Expert had concluded that the samples sent for examination contained charas and crystal

Appeal was allowed and judgment passed by Trial Court was set aside.

2019 PLD 96 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 9Possessing and trafficking narcoticSafe custodyScope

Where safe custody of the recovered substance or safe transmission of samples of the recovered substance is not proved by the prosecution through any independent evidence, it cannot be presumed with any degree of confidence that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

2019 YLR 954 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Possessing and trafficking narcoticAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubt

If complainant and his witness had proceeded to the place of incident together with the rest of Police personnel, on spy information, then they were, under lawful obligation to have associated with them independent person to witness the possible arrest and recovery, but it was not done for no reason; which had rendered the proceeding as doubtful one

One shopper was found containing seven pieces of charas, weighing six K.Gs.

Samples were drawn from each and every piece of charas so secured

Samples so drawn were not weighed, marked and sealed individually which rendered the proceedings doubtful

Evidence of the complainant and witness, were not inspiring confidence so as to rely to maintain conviction and sentence of accused

Evidence of Mashir, was silent with regard to preparation of mashirnama of place of incident at the dictation of Inspector

No reliance could be placed upon mashirnama of place of incident

Samples of charas sent to Chemical Examiner, were delivered to him with delay of one day, without any explanation for such delay

Samples separated from six pieces were found ten in number by Chemical Examiner on desealing

No explanation was offered by prosecution for such discrepancy

Prosecution, having not been able to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of doubt, accused was entitled to its benefit

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court by way of impugned judgment could not sustain

Accused was acquitted from the charge in circumstances.

2018 MLD 1237 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Explosives Act (IV of 1884), Ss.4 & 5Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23(1)(a)Possessing and trafficking narcoticsRecovery of explosive material and armsAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubt

Case of prosecution was that Police had recovered one bomb, one .32 bore revolver containing four bullets and 2200 grams charas from possession of accused

First Information Report registered in that respect was cancelled under "C" class and said summary had been approved by the concerned Magistrate on the ground that Bomb Disposal Officer had furnished report that no bomb/explosive substance was found

Accused who was challaned under S.23(1)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and Trial Court after trial had acquitted him from the charge of recovery of revolver along with four live bullets on the basis of material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses

Benefit of doubt was extended to accused and he was acquitted of the charge of recovery of revolver as well as of bullets

Prosecution had failed to bring home guilt of accused without reasonable shadow of doubt

Police also recovered charas and its sample was sent to Chemical Examiner after about two days of its recovery

Prosecution had failed to establish safe custody of charas at Police Station

Prosecution neither produced any record showing that property was deposited in Malkhana nor had examined Moharrir or the person who deposited the case property in the office of Chemical Examiner

Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused, conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, were set aside extending him the benefit of doubt and he was acquitted of the charge.

2014 PCrLJ 882 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 9Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)Possessing and trafficking narcoticAppeal against acquittalReappraisal of evidence

Two star witnesses in the case, during their statements, and especially in their cross-examination, had totally contradicted to each other on material points

No plausible explanation of sending of contraband to Forensic Science Laboratory after the delay of about twelve days had been given

Accused was not history-sheeter and was not convicted before in similar cases

Prosecution had failed to bring home charge against accused to connect him with the commission of offence

Trial Court after taking stock of the entire material on record, arrived at the conclusion that prosecution had not been able to establish its case against accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt

Judgment recording acquittal, could not be held to be arbitrary or whimsical

No useful purpose would be achieved, if impugned judgment of the court below was set at naught, and case was remanded for trial de novo, because the possibility of conviction of accused was remote; and re-trial would result in futile exercise.

2013 PCrLJ 1597 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 9(b)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.243 & 412Possessing and trafficking narcoticAppreciation of evidenceRight of appeal of accused who pleaded guiltyAccused pleaded guilty and the Trial Court recorded confessional statement of accusedRecord had clearly revealed that accused was intimated about the charge and consequences of confessionShow-cause notice was given to accused under S.243, Cr.P.C.Accused remained consistent with confessional statement

Trial Court, after fulfilling codal formalities, recorded confessional statement of accused and certified that same was true and voluntary

Accused had made his confessional statement voluntarily, and it did not suffer from any defect of form or substance

Retraction of confession was not enough to make it involuntary, or diminished its intrinsic value

By virtue of provision of S.412, Cr.P.C., accused who pleaded guilty to the charge, had no right of appeal against his conviction, but could maintain an appeal only to the extent of the legality of the sentence passed against him by the Trial Court

Trial Court while convicting accused kept into the consideration settled law

Conviction of accused recorded by the Trial Court was not open to any legitimate exception

Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was maintained and appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.