Possessing explosive material

2025 SCMR 1008 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4 & 5Possessing explosive materialCase propertySeal not belonging to investigating officerEffectSeal affixed on parcels of case property and samples is usually with abbreviation of the name of investigating officer

Seal not matching with name of investigating officer supports the claim of accused regarding fake recovery proceedings.

2016 PCrLJ 1815 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 5Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7 & 25(4)Possessing explosive materialAppeal against acquittalReappraisal of evidence

No illegality, infirmity or improbability was found in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, as it had been passed strictly in line with the settled principles of law

Trial Court, disbelieved the ocular version furnished by prosecution witnesses, by holding that they were not only found contradicting each other on material facts, but also found at variance about places of recovery of material

Record was silent about any search warrant obtained from the competent court for conducting raid on the premises

No independent witness i.e. Nazim or Elder of the locality had been associated during raid, which was clear violation of S.103, Cr.P.C.

Live rounds of different bore allegedly recovered, were sent to Fire Arms Expert after delay of 3 days; and were received in Forensic Science Laboratory after delay of 9 days, for which no explanation had been offered by the prosecution

Nothing was on record to show as to in whose safe custody said five rounds were lying during the period

Recovered explosive materials were examined in Bomb Disposal Unit after about two months, despite those were stated to be alive and dangerous

Bomb Disposal Expert, who examined the explosive material, had not been examined by the prosecution, which had made prosecution case doubtful

Trial Court, lawfully and consciously considered all said facts before formulating an opinion of innocence in favour of accused, which was not open to any exception

Reasons recorded by the Trial Court for the acquittal of accused, were in line with the evidence on record and circumstances mentioned therein

No defect was found in the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court as court had acted strictly in accordance with law and principles governing the safe administration of criminal justice.