Possession of narcotic substance

Prosecution case was that 42 kilograms charas was recovered from the vehicle driven by accused/driver and other three co-accused who were present therein

Trial Court convicted the accused and co-accused and sentenced them

Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed

Validity

In this case the most important evidentiary chain was broken owing to lack of safe custody and transmission of narcotics and no record of when the entry was made in Form-19

Proceedings were not conducted on the spot but were shifted to the police station, thereby creating ample room for doubt

Prosecution failed to prove exclusive and conscious possession of the narcotics by the appellants beyond reasonable doubt

Alleged recovery was attributed collectively to all four accused through a joint pointation memo, without clear demarcation of individual responsibility

Moreover, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that individuals transporting contraband would keep it near their feet so openly in a car

Safe custody of the samples was not established as the relevant malkhana registers were withheld and the complainant himself acted as Investigating Officer, thereby compromising the neutrality of investigation

In these circumstances, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act, 1997, could not be invoked, as the prosecution's own case fell short of the standard of proof required in criminal law

Consequently, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt, which must always go to the accused as of right rather than concession

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that ASI/Muharrar stated that on 20.02.2021, the complainant of the case and the Investigating Officer of the case, handed over to him 150 sealed parcels said to contain samples drawn and separated from the recovered "Charas" and another 08 sealed parcels said to contain the remaining "Charas" and on 22.02.2021 he handed over the 150 sealed parcels said to contain samplesto a Constable for their onward transmission to the office of the Forensic Science Agency

Similarly, said Constable in his statement recorded by the Trial Court stated that on 22.02.2021, ASI/ Muharrar handed over to him 150 sealed sample parcels of Charas weighing 10 gm each, with the stamp of AA for their onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner which he deposited in the said office on the same day, intact

However, according to the contents of the report of Forensic Science Agency, the 150 sealed parcels said to contain samples were received in the Forensic Science Agency, on 22.08.2021

Moreover, a man could tell a lie but documents do not

Report of Forensic Science Agency was in direct contradiction to the statements of ASI/Muharrar and Constable, who both stated that the 150 sealed parcels said to contain samples drawn and separated from the recovered "Charas" were deposited in the Forensic Science Agency on 22.02.2021

It was not explained that in whose custody the 150 sealed parcels said to contain samples remained from 22.02.2021 to 22.08.2021

It was not explained that which prosecution witness deposited the 150 sealed parcels said to contain samples in the Forensic Science Agency, on 22.08.2021

Said portion of the prosecution evidence proved that there were missing links in the chain relating to the taking into possession the case property from the place of occurrence and its submission to the Forensic Science Agency

In such a state of contradictory evidence available on the record, safe custody of the recovered substance or its samples was not discernable from the record of the case and, thus, it was extremely unsafe to uphold and maintain the appellant's conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 25000-grams chars in 23 packets and 16000-grams opium in 16 packets were recovered from secret cavities of vehicle driven by accused

Record showed that complainant of the case categorically stated that he on 20.01.2021 after receiving the case property from Moharrar deposited the same in Maalkhana Saddar

Similarly, Moharrar of the Police Station stated that on 20.01.2021, he handed over remaining case property to complainant of the case for depositing the same in Malkhana Saddar

However, prosecution had not produced Incharge of Maalkhana Saddar or any other official from there to prove that remaining case property was received or kept over there in safe custody and this fact had been fairly conceded even by the Prosecutor after going through the record

In such circumstances, "safe custody" of the "parcels of remaining case property" had not been proved by the prosecution

Unbroken chain of safe custody of "allegedly recovered case property and parcels of samples" was to be proved, otherwise conviction was not possible and it was rightly so because recovery of narcotic was a mere corroboratory piece of evidence rather it constituted the offence itself and entailed punishment

However, conviction recorded against the appellant regarding charas and opium under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was maintained to the extent of charas whereas it was converted to conviction under S.9 (b) of the Act ibid to the extent of opium

Thus, as per the sentencing policy, the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for 01 year and 08 months along with fine of Rs.7,000/- for recovery of 797.32 grams opium whereas for recovery of 1256.95 grams charas he was sentenced to R.I. for a period of 04 years and 06 months with fine of Rs.20,000/

With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was partly allowed.

Chain of safe custody of the sample of parcel of narcotic substances from the place of recovery to the laboratory for analysis proved

Prosecution case was that 25000-grams chars in 23 packets and 16000-grams opium in 16 packets were recovered from secret cavities of vehicle driven by accused

Statements of the complainant, Investigating Officer and recovery witness showed that the chain of safe custody of the parcels of samples of recovered narcotic substances from the place of recovery to the office of Forensic Science Agency, was completed

Moreover, report of Forensic Science Agency produced in the case, reflected that complainant deposited the parcels of samples on 22.01.2021 in said office, and as per the report, charas and opium were confirmed in said samples and total net weight of 25-parcels of samples of charas was calculated as "1256.95-grams" whereas net weight of 16-parcels of samples of opium was calculated as "797.32-grams"

All the recovery witnesses of the prosecution had duly supported the case of the prosecution to said extent through their statements recorded before the Court

Credit of the testimonies of said witnesses could not be impeached to said extent

Thus, the recovery as well as safe custody of charas and opium upto the extent of 1256.95-grams charas and 797.32-grams of opium, which were secured as samples through parcels and sent to the Forensic Science Agency, had been proved against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt through cogent evidence for the purpose of conviction and sentence of the appellant

Resultantly, conviction recorded against the appellant regarding charas and opium under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was maintained to the extent of charas whereas it was converted to conviction under S.9 (b) of the Act ibid to the extent of opium

Thus, as per the sentencing policy, the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for 01 year and 08 months along with fine of Rs.7,000/- for recovery of 797.32 grams opium whereas for recovery of 1256.95 grams charas he was sentenced to R.I. for a period of 04 years and 06 months with fine of Rs.20,000/

With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was partly allowed.

While examining the appellant as accused under S.342, Cr.P.C during trial of the case, it was not put to accused that who handed over case property at the place of recovery and to whom for taking the same to the police station; who brought case property from place of recovery at the police station and handed over to whom for keeping the same in safe custody, and who brought case property in safe custody at the police station, therefore, chain of safe custody of the parcels of remaining case property as well as of the parcels of the samples had not been put to the appellant under S.342, Cr.P.C, hence same could not be used against accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt hence appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Complainant of the casestated that on 18.10.2022, Moharrar handed over to him seven sealed parcels including two parcels of samples in this case for onward transmission to Forensic Science Agency, whereas remaining five parcels for transmission to Malkhana Saddar

Complainant deposited said two parcels of samples at the office of Forensic Science Agency, on 20.10.2022

Any plausible, convincing, valid and cogent reason for keeping both parcels of samples in this case with complainant from 18.10.2022 till 20.10.2022 and not depositing the same on 18.10.2022 or 19.10.2022 in the office of Forensic Science Agency was not discernible from the record

If for any reason whatsoever, said parcels of samples could not be deposited on 18.10.2022 or 19.10.2022, then it was mandatory for complainant to return the same to the Moharrar of the Police Station on 18.10.2022 or on 19.10.2022 for keeping the same in safe custody and then to re-collect said parcels of samples from Moharrar on the day of their deposit in the office of Forensic Science Agency i.e. 20.10.2022 but any such exercise had not been done by complainant as very fairly conceded by Prosecutor after going through entire record

Said state of affairs straightaway led to the conclusion that chain of safe custody of both parcels of samples had been compromised and not established/proved in this case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had been failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt hence appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Prosecution version qua the recovery had been substantiated through the statements of complainant, recovery witness and Head Constable

While appearing in the witness-box all the prosecution witnesses remained affirm qua minute details of the mode of recovery of the contraband from the appellant

Said witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross- examination on material aspects, however, their testimonies could not be shaken in any manner whatsoever

After registration of the case, the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence where he was handed over the recovered narcotic substance (sample parcels and the parcels of remaining bulk quantity) along with custody of the appellant

On reaching the police station, the Investigating Officer deposited the sample parcels and the parcels of remaining bulk quantity with Head Constable/Moharrar for safe custody and onward transmission to the quarters concerned

Said Moharrar, on 21.03.2024, handed over the sample parcels separated from the recovered narcotic substance to Investigating Officer for depositing in the office of Forensic Science Agency

Name of the Investigating Officer was duly reflected in the forensic report

On 25.03.2024 Moharrar handed over the remaining bulk quantity to the Investigating Officer, who deposited it with Incharge Malkhana

Thus, prosecution successfully established the chain of safe custody of the recovered contraband

Forensic report depicted that two sample parcels, sent for chemical analysis, contained charas

Report further reflected the details of tests and protocols applied to carry out such tests, which met the requirement of relevant law

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

However, there was nothing on record to suggest that they bore any animosity or malice against the appellant that would have motivated them to falsely implicate or substitute him in place of the actual culprit(s)

Police Officials were as competent and credible as any other private witnesses

In the absence of any demonstrated animosity or mala fide intent, their testimony was worthy of reliance, provided it remained consistent and unshaken during the test of cross-examination

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 48-kilograms charas in 40 packets was recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle driven by accused

From the evidence on record, it transpired that no procedural infirmity was committed by the Anti Narcotic Force Officials while recovering huge quantity of charas

Timely recovery was made at the pointation of the appellant and the weighing of the quantity was made at the spot

Once the appellant along with the vehicle and the recovered narcotics was brought to the police station where FIR was lodged, recovered charas was deposited in the Malkhana

Sealed parcels were sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis, who had observed relevant rules and protocols for analyzing the same and furnished a positive report

Further it appeared that 48 kilograms charas had been recovered from the appellant and it was difficult to believe that such a huge quantity of narcotic could be foisted upon a person

Evidence brought before the Trial Court was confidence inspiring

No doubt, all the prosecution witnesses were Police Officials, but their evidence being confidence inspiring was liable to be accepted

However, the Police Officials were equally good witnesses and could be relied upon if their testimony remained un-shattered during cross-examination

Appellant in his statement had only deposed against the Anti Narcotic Force Officials for impleading him in a case but again no enmity of any sort, as to why Anti Narcotic Force Official would implicate him in a false case, was deposed by him

When the prosecution was able to prove its case on its salient features then un-necessary technicalities should not be allowed to hamper the very purpose of the law on the subject

Close analysis of the whole prosecution evidence i.e. the recovery of huge quantity of charas, separating the samples from each packet in a prescribed manner, sending them to the Chemical Examiner, report of the Chemical Examiner and the statements of the prosecution witnesses when evaluated conjointly left no room to come to a different conclusion than what had been arrived at by the Trial Court

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record showed that while recording the statements of the appellants under S.342, Cr.P.C., the basic document i.e., (the booking slip) was not confronted to the appellants during their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Said omission constituted a clear contravention of the mandate of S.342, Cr.P.C., which obligated the Court to put to the accused every piece of incriminating evidence appearing against him, so as to enable him to explain the circumstances

Record further reflected that the incriminating material regarding the booking slip, as well as the presence and production of the pieces ofnarcotic-soaked fabric during trial, were never specifically put to the appellants

Moreover, the chemical report, along with its brief analysis, was also not confronted to them during their examination under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

According to the prosecution's own stance, the entire case property was forwarded to the office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis

However, the record was conspicuously silent as to who subsequently brought back the case property from the said office and when it was returned for its production before the Trial Court during the course of evidence

Prosecution had not examined any official or produced any documentary proof to establish this crucial link

Safe return and production of case property in Court was as essential as its safe transmission to the Chemical Examiner, because unless that chain was shown to be complete and free from suspicion, the sanctity of the case property stands compromised

In narcotics cases, where the conviction primarily rested upon the report of the Chemical Examiner, any gap in the chain of custody vitiated the evidentiary value of such a report and rendered it incapable of sustaining conviction

Prosecution was under a bounden duty to establish not only the recovery of narcotics, but also the separation of samples and their onward transmission through safe and secure hands

Any lapse or violation in that regard strikes at the very root of the prosecution's case

Since the prosecution had failed to establish the safe custody and secure transmission of the parcels of case property from the police station to the office of the Chemical Examiner and thereafter to the Court, the report of the Chemical Examiner had consequently lost its conclusiveness and could not be relied upon as the basis for conviction

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Investigating Officer stated in the memo. of inspection that the crime scene was located on the main street running north-south, with the national highway situated to the north

It was an admitted fact that the incident took place in a densely populated area and the complainant acted on a prior tip-off

However, no independent witnesses were associated with the arrest and recovery

While S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excluded the mandatory application of S.103 of the Cr.P.C., allowing Police Officials to be considered competent witnesses, that did not absolve the complainant of the responsibility to involve independent public witnesses

Absence of such witnesses raised concerns regarding the potential false implication of the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that the charge against the appellant/accused was framed based on the recovery of charas,with a recorded weight of 2100 grams

Complainant testified in his examination-in-chief that the total weight of the recovered charas was 2130 grams

Similarly, recovery witness stated during his examination-in-chief that 2130 grams of charas was recovered from the appellant's possession

However, the memo. of arrest and recovery, along with the chemical report, indicated that the recovered charas weighed 2100 grams

Said inconsistency and contradiction between the depositions of the complainant and the witness, as compared to the memo. of arrest and recovery regarding the weight of the case property, were significant and detrimental to the prosecution's case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant stated that the case property was handed over to the Head Moharar, yet the latter was not examined as a witness

Head Moharrar was a crucial prosecution witness,as his testimony was essential to establishing the safe custody of the case property and ensuring an unbroken chain of custody

Failure to examine Head Moharrarsubstantially weakened the prosecution's case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant stated that after completing the recovery proceedings, he took both the appellants, contraband, along with parcels and the vehicle to the police station and handed over the same to Moharrar

Said Moharrar stated that complainant handed over to him sample parcels total 1640 in number and 5/5 grams charas (samples) for onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory and 82 sacks of case property for safe custody in the Mallkhana of the police station

Said witness also stated that he sent 1640 parcels weighing 5 grams each to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with application to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis through Police Constable

However, the said Police Constable through whom 1640 samples of the contraband material were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory had not been produced in the witness box by the prosecution

No valid reason had been given before the Trial Court for non-production of the said witness in the witness box

Name of the said Police Constable had also not been mentioned in the calendar of witnesses in report under Section 173,Cr.P.C.

Report of Forensic Science Laboratory depicted that the name of the person who deposited the sample parcels in the said office had not been mentioned therein and only No. 5915 had been mentioned

Head Constable, while appearing in the witness box before the trial Court, stated that he took Murasila, the recovery memo, the card of arrest, application for Forensic Science Laboratory along with parcels to the police station and handed over the same to Police Officer/ASI

However, upon perusal of the deposition of Police Officer/ASI, said witness did not make any mention of receipt of the said parcels of charasand only mentioned receipt of the Murasila sent by complainant

However, as per the deposition of complainant, the said samples were handed over to Moharrar for onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory

Such ambiguity as to who was handed over the samples parcels of the charas raised serious doubts regarding the chain of custody of the contraband material by the prosecution and the genuineness of the prosecution story, the benefit of which ambiguities and doubts was to be extended to the appellants as a matter of right

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Perusal of the contents of the FIR showed that 680-grams heroin was allegedly recovered from the possession of petitioner

Record showed that, despite the existence of spy information, no independent witness was present to witness the purported recovery and no video was produced to substantiate the allegation of the narcotic being recovered from the petitioner's possession

In addition to the petitioner's detention, his companion was also apprehended on the same charges

Petitioner's counsel in support of his contention also placed on record the CCTV footage and photographs in this matter

This case warranted judicial scrutiny for the purpose of determining bail due to its distinctive facts and circumstances

Petitioner's consistent allegations of false implication, alleged prior harassment, confiscation of CCTV evidence, absence of independent witnesses and the prompt filing of complaints before Senior Police Officials suggested that the case warranted further investigation

Moreover, the quantity recovered, although substantial, did not reach commercial levels and raid was not conducted in the presence of neutral witnesses or substantiated by any video evidence

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed and petitioner was granted post-arrest bail.

Testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses revealed material gaps and contradictions regarding the safe custody and transmission of the recovered substance from the spot to the Police Station and then samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory

Police Official, who allegedly conveyed the mirasila and case property to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR was registered, was neither cited nor examined as a witness

Non-production of said Police Official was a serious blow to the prosecution's case as in absence of his statement, there was no other evidence to prove safe transmission of the cases property and samples from the spot to the Police Station

Seizing Officer/complainant did not mention in his statement or in his cross-examination the specific act of sending the narcotic to the Police Station or to the Forensic Science Laboratory

Moharrir, admitted that the parcels were handed over to him by the Investigating Officer without the issuance of any receipt and he did not produce Register No.19 on record

Investigating Officer failed to mention the name of the person through whom the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, although the Forensic Science Laboratory Report mentioned his own name

Moharrir also admitted not recording the statements of key persons under Section 161, Cr.P.C., and failed to exhibit any documentary trail evidencing a secure chain of custody of the samples from the spot to the Forensic Science Laboratory

In narcotics cases, due to the severity of punishment involved, the prosecution must establish an unbroken secure and reliable chain of custody of the recovered contraband from the point of seizure to its receipt at the Forensic Laboratory

Any lacuna or discrepancy in that regard rendered the entire process suspect and the report of the Chemical Examiner inadmissible or at the very least unreliable

In the case at hand, the prosecution had manifestly failed to discharge that burden

Unexplained and undocumented transmission of samples, non-examination of key witnesses, failure to produce chain-of-custody registers and contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses cumulatively casted a serious doubt on the integrity of the evidence

Consequently, the Chemical Examiner's report became unsafe to rely upon and could not be made the sole basis for conviction

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 30 kilogram charas/hashish was recovered from the truck driven by accused "GK", while accused "MK" was seated in the front passenger seat

Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life

Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed

Validity

As per record, petitioner "MK" was sitting on front seat at the time of interception

As such, attributing the illicit narcotics found in the vehicle to petitioner "MK" could not be justified in the absence of any evidence linking him to the possession or control of the vehicle, as prosecution failed to provide evidence that he was aware of the narcotic in the vehicle

Since petitioner "MK" lacked a possessory right in or control over the vehicle, and it could not be inferred that he had knowledge of the narcotic

Thus, petitioner "MK" was neither conscious nor aware of the narcotic present in the vehicle

Supreme Court found no reasonable grounds to uphold his conviction

Petition of petitioner, "MK", was converted into appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and he was acquitted of the charge.

Prosecution case was that 30 kilogram charas/hashish was recovered from the truck driven by accused "GK", while accused "MK" was seated in the front passenger seat

Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life

Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed

Validity

Record showed that the intercepted truck was under the control and custody of the driver, petitioner "GK", which legally amounted to his constructive possession of the narcotic recovered from the vehicle

In such circumstances, the driver was deemed responsible for the contraband found in the vehicle under his charge and it was presumed that he had knowledge of its presence

When the petitioner, "GK", was signaled to stop the vehicle, he instead accelerated, which was a clear indication of his intent to flee

Such action of speeding up in response to a police signal, strongly suggested that the petitioner "GK" had something to hide

Situation became even more telling when, upon searching the vehicle, narcotic was uncovered from secret compartments within the truck's cabin body

Petitioner "GK" not only had knowledge of the contraband but was in clear constructive possession of the contraband narcotic

In that regard, the petitioner "GK" had been rightly found guilty of committing an offence falling within the ambit of Sections 6 and 7 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and punishable under Section 9(c) of the said Act

Petition of petitioner "GK" for leave was dismissed accordingly.

Prosecution case was that 30 kilogram charas/hashish was recovered from the truck driven by accused "GK", while accused "MK" was seated on the front passenger seat

Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life

Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed

Validity

Official witnesses were competent witnesses unless mala fide, enmity, or ulterior motive is convincingly established on the record, which, in the present case, was conspicuously absent

In fact, it had emerged on record that all the prosecution witnesses belonged to the Excise Department, whereas the accused persons were from another province and there existed no past animosity between them that may give rise to suspicion of false implication

Petition of petitioner "GK" for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Recovery witness produced the recovery memo. of recovered 'charas' and produced parcel No.1, pertaining to the sample of narcotic weighing 5000 grams, whereas parcel No.2 pertaining to remaining 20,000 grams of narcotic

Parcel No.1 pertaining to the sample of narcotic weighing 5000 grams was handed over to "NA" Constable, who deposited the same in the office of Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, which was chemically tested and analyzed, where in the process of testing 300 grams of charas his consumed and remaining 4700 grams was returned back, but recovery witness while testifying before the Court did not mention regarding consumption and return of said samples from the office of Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, which was astonishing, making his statement cloudy, whereof no explanation had been offered by any of the prosecution witnesses

More-so, in the instant case, although separate sample had been drawn, but consolidated sample of 5000 grams was put in parcel No.1 and sent to Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, henceforth, in the attending circumstances only one kg charas could be considered to have been recovered from the appellant

Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution in order to establish the safe custody and transmission of the narcotics mainly relied upon the statement of recovery witness, who testified that after the registration of the FIR, the investigation was assigned to Investigating Officer, who handed over him parcel Nos.1 and cash amount of Rs.4300/- and a spare wheel which were kept by him in the malkhana, but did not mention about the date on which he received the same from Investigating Officer

On 20.01.2022 parcel No.1, pertaining to 5000 grams of 'charas' was handed over to "NA" Constable on the directions of the Investigating Officer for onwards submission to the office of Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory for chemical analysis, whereof positive report dated 25.01.20232 was received

Prosecution witness neither mentioned that he made entry of the recovered articles in Register No.19 nor produced the extract and copy of the said register and also admitted in his statement recorded under S.161 of Cr.P.C that neither Investigating Officer obtained or demanded any extract of the certified copy of the said register nor he obtained any receipt from "NA" Constable regarding deposit of parcel No.1 in the office of Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, for chemical analysis, which put a severe dent into the entire process of safe custody and transmission of the narcotic

Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 06 kilograms crystal was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by the accused

According to the statement of the Incharge Malkhana, he on 31st March 2024 received the parcels from Investigating Officer and he made entries whereof in the Register No.19

Said witness admitted that the Investigating Officer did not sign the Register No.19

Said witness further admitted that the produced Register No.19 was not prepared according to Police Rules rather the same was manually made in a plain paper

Said witness stated that the produced Register No. 19 was silent with regard to transmission of sealed parcels for Forensic Science Laboratory

Besides, perusal of Register No.19 showed that the column No.1 whereof with regard to handing over the parcels to any personnel of the police for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Expert was blank

Besides, the columns 5 & 6 of the Register No.19, which provided that every article placed in the store-room shall be entered and removal of any such articleshall be noted in the appropriated column, but in the case in hand, the perusal of Register No.19 did not bear the signatures of handing & taking over the samples

Even otherwise, the same did not contain the name of officials, who took over the case property for onward transmission

Thus, said material discrepancies showed that the prosecution had compromised the safe custody of the narcotics and created a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 06 kilograms crystal was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by the accused

Complainant of the case mostly reiterated the contents of his fard-e-bayan, but however, to some extent he derailed from his earlier statement, thus, contradicted the case of prosecution

Said witness stated that 12 packets of recovered substances were in square shape, while he showed his ignorance with regard to weighing the same at the spot

Recovery witness, while contradicting the statement of complainant, deposed that the recovered contraband consisting upon 12 packets was in round shape, contrary to the same complainant deposed that the same was in square shape

Said witness further deposed that the Investigating Officer conducted the recovery proceedings outside the Levies room at the eastern side, whereas complainant deposed that the Investigating Officer completed the recovery proceedings inside the room of Levies Check Post

Recovery witness admitted that his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., and recovery memo. was silent with regard to weighing each packet separately

Said witness further admitted that the engine number of the produced Fielder in the Trial Court was C60837, while the same was mentioned in the recovery memo. as C611472

Recovery within admitted that chassis number of the vehicle in question was mentioned in the recovery memo. as chassis No.NZE-144-6003072, whereas when the same was produced before the Trial Court was having chassis bearing No.NZE-144-9003072

Meaning thereby the vehicle from which the alleged contraband was recovered had not been produced before the Trial Court

Investigating Officer of the case, who counted the steps taken by him during the course of investigation, had contradicted the statements of rest of the witnesses during his cross-examination and admitted that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the recovered contraband was lying on floor near the vehicle in question

While contrary to the same complainant stated that the substances were lying on the back seat of the vehicle in question till the arrival of the Investigating Officer

Thus, such admissions and contradictory statements of the witnesses created serious doubts in the case of prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 06kilograms crystal was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by the accused

Investigating Officer stated that the recovery proceedings were completed at 04:00 a.m., while the same deposition was negated by the Incharge Malkhana, who deposed that Investigating Officer handed over him the parcels at 12:30 a.m. and his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., was recorded by the Investigating Officer at 12:40 a.m.

Thus, a question arose that according to the Investigating Officer, the recovery proceedings were completed at 04:00 a.m. then how the parcels could be handed over to the Incharge Malkhana three hours before

Furthermore, Investigating Officer also admitted that there was no facility of WAPDA and Solar System electricity, while his entire statement was silent that through which source of light they completed the recovery proceedings

Such conduct and admission of Investigating Officer did not appeal to the logic, which created serious dents in the case of prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 06kilograms crystal was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by the accused

Alleged recovery of contraband was affected from a Fielder Car, but the prosecution had failed to establish the ownership of the appellants or their being as last possessors

In absence of any cogent and concrete evidence neither it could be presumed that the said Fielder Car was owned by the appellants or that the appellants were the last possessors of the same and also responsible for recovery of the contraband effected from the car in question

Unless the prosecution established the ownership of the appellants in respect of Fielder Car, he could not be held responsible for the alleged recovery of contraband

Recovery of Crystal from the Fielder in question could not ipso facto be proof of the guilt of the appellants unless possession and ownership of vehicle was proved against the appellants through confidence inspiring evidence, which was lacking

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 06 kilograms crystal was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by the accused

Report of the Government Analyst under S.36(2) of the Act, 1997, was of pivotal importance in narcotics cases

In order to succeed, the prosecution was required not only to prove the factum of recovery, but also exhibited positive report of the Government Analyst drawn in accordance with law

In the case in hand, the report of the Chemical Examiner was defective

Perusal of record reflected that twelve sealed parcels of Crystal were received in the office of Chemical Expert on 2nd April 2024, but instead of preparing separate reports for each sample containing details of the protocols applied, the Chemical Examiner drew up consolidated report for the aforesaid samples

Said fact was a flagrant disregard of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which rendered the reports nullity in the eye of law

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

A vehicle was intercepted from which 18 packets of opium, weighing 17 kg and 500 grams, 11 packets of crystal, weighing 11 kg, 22 packets of heroin, weighing 22 kg and Sheesha weighing 1165 gram were recovered from secret cavity of rear seat of the vehicle which was being driven by the accused

Accused was acquitted by the Trial Court and the appellant had filed application before the Trial Court for giving the said vehicle to him on superdari which was dismissed

Validity

In the present case the appellant after acquittal of the accused had claimed vehicle in question on the basis of photo copy of an undated, unattested open transfer letter allegedly signed by owner of the vehicle

An open transfer letter was not a valid document of a title, therefore, the impugned judgment warranted no interference

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record showed that Seizing Officer did not mention in his examination-in chief that after recovery of the contraband, who received the same or to whom he handed over the contraband

Said witness did not state about arrival of Moharar on the crime scene, writing of murasila and making parcels

Recovery witness testified to have recovered 30 kilograms 'charas' from the trunk of car driven by the appellant, however, while contradicting Seizing Officer, he stated that Moharar came on the crime scene, prepared murasila, and sent it through the driver for registration of the FIR

Head Moharar testified that on 31.01.2023 Investigating Officer handed over to him parcel Nos.1 to 30, which were entered by him at serial No.544 of Register No.19 and that on 01.02.2023, he handed back the said parcels to Investigating Officer

Said witness produced relevant page of Register No.19

During cross-examination, said witness stated that in the police station there were only one Head Moharar, an Assistant Moharar and two Munshis, and that Head Moharar was in-charge of the malkhana, however he did not state to have been present on the spot at the time of recovery, making parcels, or writing murasila as testified by recovery witness

Testimony of Investigating Officer had also been found to be contradictory to the statements of complainant, recovery witness and Moharar

Such contradictions made the recovery doubtful

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Recovery witness showed presence of Moharar on the crime scene and stated that Moharar prepared the recovery memo, parcels, and murasila, whereas Moharar himself, while contradicting recovery witness, did not support him rather stated that he received the parcels in the police station, where he made entry in Register No.19

Moharar testified that on 01.02.2023, he handed back the recovered parcels to Investigating Officer, whereas the Forensic Laboratory Report showed that the parcels were received on 02.02.2023, whereof there was no explanation that during such period, where did the parcels remain

Thus, the safe custody of narcotic substance and its transmission from the place of recovery to malkhana and then to the Forensic Laboratory for analysis became questionable, which created doubt

Furthermore, perusal of copy of Register No.19 showed that complainant deposited the parcels in the malkhana, which belied Moharar as well as Investigating Officer

Moreso, column Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 of copy of Register No.19 had been left blank, which also raised questions with regard to the evidentiary value of such documents as it offended R.22.49 of Police Rules,1934

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstance.

Sub item (i) of Item No.2 of Form-II of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2007, clearly manifested that after conducting narcotics test, the Analyst and Authorized Officer must make a statement that while preparing the results of the test and analysis of the suspected material (narcotics), the required protocols had been observed and they may be prosecuted under the law for intentionally making a false statement to the Court, which showed the importance of compliance of the protocols

In the present case and in most of the Forensic Laboratory Reports, declaration as contemplated in Form-II were not provided, which was obligatory upon the signatories of Form-II

Although, such statement was directory and not mandatory, having no penal consequences, but even then, while considering the evidence on record with the Forensic Laboratory Report, its non-adherence might in appropriate cases have an effective impact and bearing on the merits of the case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 41-kilograms baked charas was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by the appellant

Recovery witness produced parcel No.1, pertained to the sample of narcotics weighing 8200 grams, whereas parcel No.2 pertained to remaining 32800 grams of narcotics

Parcel No.1 pertaining to the sample of narcotics weighing 8200 grams was sent to Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, which was chemically tested and analyzed, where in the process of testing 500 grams of charas was consumed and remaining 7700 grams was returned back, but recovery witness while testifying before the Court categorically stated that parcel No. 1 contained 8200 grams of charas and produced the same, which was astonishing, making his statement cloudy, whereof no explanation had been offered by the prosecution

More-so, in the instant case, although separate sample had been drawn, but consolidated sample of 8200 grams were put in parcel No.1 and sent to Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, henceforth, in the attending circumstances only one kg charas could be considered to have been recovered from the appellant

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 25-kilograms baked charas was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by the accused

Recovery witness during cross-examination admitted that there was no access to the cavities from the flooring part of the vehicle

Trial Court during inspection of the vehicle noted and observed that there was a small access, which went toward the engine of the vehicle, however, categorically stated that it did not go toward any secret cavity

Prosecution seemed to have failed to demonstrate that where and how the secret cavities were made and narcotics were concealed therein

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that 41-kilograms baked charas was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by the accused

Prosecution in order to establish the safe custody and transmission of the narcotic mainly relied upon the statement of Malkhana Incharge, who testified that the Investigating Officer handed over him parcel Nos.1 & 2, registration book of the vehicle and other articles recovered from the personal possession of the appellant, which were handed over back to a prosecution witness for chemical analysis

Said witness neither mentioned that he made entry of the recovered articles in Register No.19 nor produced the extract and copy of the said register

Said witness admitted that he had not mentioned in his statement recorded under S.161 of Cr.P.C about the register No. 19 or making any entry therein and also admitted that the parcels did not contain any number when the same were handed over back to him

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Legislature has amended Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2025, wherein sentence for contravention of S.10 of the Act has been amended and for possessing psychotropic substance of quantity ranging from 100 grams to 500 grams new punishment of 5 years along with fine had been provided

One of the effects of reduction of sentence would naturally be relating to grant of bail

Earlier S.11-B of the Act 2019 was providing sentence of imprisonment for not less than 10 years for possessing a quantity of methamphetamine ranging from 100 grams to one kg

Earlier the offence was falling under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, while by now such an offence did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C

Although the new Act was promulgated and published in Official Gazette on 27.03.2025 while the occurrence in case in hand had taken place on 24.03.2025 and due to said reasons the Act could not be applied to the offence in hand

However one aspect of the matter required consideration that at bail stage this Court was receiving bail application from two sets of accused i.e., one against whom cases had been registered before promulgation of the Amending Act of 2025 and the other class was of those persons, against whom similar cases in similar quantity had been registered after promulgation of the Amending Act 2025

In these circumstances, question arose i.e., whether persons in same class could be differentiated while granting bail to two sets of classes

Grant of bail is a discretionary relief

Section 26 of the Act provided that provisions of Cr.P.C would be applicable to proceedings under this Act except as otherwise provided in the Act

Thus, it was clear from said provision that Special Court could grant bail when it reached the conclusion that the case was prima facie fit for grant of bail

No cavil with the proposition that the amended Act would not be ipso facto applicable to cases registered prior to promulgation of the Act however, when the matter came to exercise of jurisdiction, then two classes of accused could not be differentiated

Court could not choose and set free on bail those inmates of jail kept in custody in narcotics case, against whom cases had been registered after promulgation of amended Act and could not leave the other class of accused in similar quantity (of less than one kg methamphetamine) to remain in jail, which could not be done in exercise of discretionary powers

Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

According to the case of prosecution, 19-sample parcels were separately prepared and the main chunk of remaining heroin was packed in altogether a different parcel

All the parcels along with articles recovered from the personal search of appellant were handed over to Investigating Officer, upon his arrival at the spot

During trial, complainant candidly conceded that in his S.161 Cr.P.C. statement, he did not mention the handing over of 19-sample parcels of case property to Investigating Officer after his arrival at the place of recovery

More or less similar situation cropped up from the perusal of the testimony of Head Constable who on the eventful day was performing duty as Moharrar/Station Clerk

Even during his cross-examination it emerged that in S.161, Cr.P.C. statement said Moharrar simply stated to have received only one sealed parcel of the case property and mentioned nothing about the receipt of 19-sample parcels

Inexorably, the said facts were sufficient to expose the fragility of the prosecution case regarding the most important point of safe custody of sample parcels

Adverse impact of the such omission upon the case of prosecution could be evaluated from the fact that on the same nineteen sample parcels the Forensic Science Agency through its report opined that the recovered substance was heroin

Failure of prosecution to prove safe custody of recovered substance in cases arising out of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is always considered an incurable defect, sufficient to ward off punishment

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In this case, Lady Constable deposed in categorical terms that parcel of the sample and parcel of case property were prepared, sealed and taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and he (Investigating Officer) also prepared the complaint and then handed over the same (complaint) to Police Official

Whereas in question No.2 under S. 342, Cr.P.C., such material was not put to the accused rather preparation and taking into possession of said parcels by ASI as well as preparation of complaint by said ASI had been asked through said question

Such state of affairs would go against the prosecution

Circumstances established that prosecution had been failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Perusal of the report of Forensic Science Agency, revealed that parcel of sample was received there on 26.12.2022 from ASI, however Moharrir while appearing in the witness box had clearly deposed during cross-examination that on 26.12.2022, he handed over the sample parcel to ASI, at 6/6:15 p.m.

Said witness was neither re-examined nor asked questions under Art. 150 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, on that point

Undoubtedly, the case pertained to District "F" whereas Forensic Science Agency was situated in "L" where parcel of sample was deposited and question arose that if parcel of sample was handed over by Moharrir to ASI on 26.12.2022 at 6/6.15 p.m., then how said parcel was received on the same day i.e. on 26.12.2022 in the office of Forensic Science Agency

Prosecutor could not refer any material to answer said question and such mystery could not be resolved, which had compromised the safe transmission of parcel of sample to Forensic Science Agency

Nutshell was that safe custody of parcel of case property as well as parcel of sample had not been proved

Since safe custody of the allegedly recovered charas and sample taken out of it had not been proved in the case, therefore, report of Forensic Science Agency was inconclusive and could not be made basis for conviction

Circumstances established that prosecution had been failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that Lady Constable deposed during cross-examination before the Court that Moharrir called her from police station for the purpose of arrest of accused

Whereas as per case of prosecution, it was claimed through fard bian that Lady Constable was accompanying the police party when accused was apprehended

Said witness was neither re-examined nor questions were put to her on said points by the prosecution under Art.150 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, meaning thereby that said portions of her said statement were not denied/negated rather were admitted by the prosecution

So, on the one hand securing and safe custody of parcel of sample as well as parcel of remaining case property had been compromised whereas on the other hand registration of case after preliminary inquiry/ investigation was also reflecting on the record

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Unbroken chain of safe custody of "allegedly recovered case property and parcel of sample" is to be proved otherwise, conviction is not possible because recovery of narcotics is not a mere corroboratory piece of evidence rather it constitutes the offence itself and entailes punishment.

As per case of prosecution, parcel of entire statedly recovered charas was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner, and in that regard, report of Chemical Examiner was available on the record

Perusal of said report revealed that packet in the case was dispatched on 08.02.2006 from Excise and Taxation Officer, however the record did not show that when packet containing statedly recovered charas in the case was sent to the office of Excise and Taxation Officer, who took the same there and who collected it from there for submitting the same to the office of Chemical Examiner

Police Constable categorically deposed before the Court that on 14.02.2006, Head Constable/ Moharrar of the police station handed over to him one sealed parcel, which he deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner

Said witness had not stated that said parcel was at any time taken to Excise and Taxation Officer, or was collected by him from Excise and Taxation Officer, for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner

Similarly, Head Constable/ Moharrar of the police stationstated that Investigating Officer handed over parcel to him on 05.02.2006 and he handed over the same on 14.02.2006 to Police Constable for its onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner, and he did not depose that said sealed parcel was ever sent to Excise and Taxation Officer, or was received from the office of Excise and Taxation Officer

As per own case of prosecution, entire case property was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner for analysis, however, prosecution did not produce any evidence to show that when and who brought it back from said office for production of the same before the Court at the time of recording of evidence during trial of the case

Therefore, safe custody and transmission of parcel of case property from police station to the office of Chemical Examiner, and then to Court had not been proved in the case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

If safe custody of allegedly recovered substance/case property is not proved, it straightaway leads to the acquittal of the accused.

It is not uncommon/unusual in our system that some time witness makes concessional statement against the record as well as case of prosecution for extending undue benefit to the accused;so, mere concessional statement of any witness that he was having mobile phone number with him at relevant time without proof that SIM was registered in his name and without forensically analyzed voice record transcript of call made or received by said witness, is of no avail and same cannot be made basis for summoning the CDR as it would be of no help for just decision of the case.

Evidently, the contraband recovered comprised of two substantial pieces and seven smaller pieces of charas found in the exclusive possession of the applicant

Material seized was subjected to chemical analysis, confirming it narcotic nature

Witness statements under S.161 Cr.P.C, substantiated the prosecution narrative

Absence of enmity or malice between the applicant and the complainant underscored the credibility of the recovery

Given the gravity of the offence, which jeopardized public welfare and posed substantial harm to society, the Court emphasises that bail could not be claimed as a matter of right in cases involving narcotics of this magnitude

Furthermore, the prosecution submission regarding the applicant's prior criminal record strengthened the assertion of habitual delinquency, as evidenced by antecedents involving offences

Bail application being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

As per the prosecution's case, incident had occurred in a busy area i.e. main gate bus stand, where many private persons were available, but no efforts were made by the Investigating Officer of the crime to arrange any witness of the locality, who might have seen the appellant in any manner linked with the narcotic dropped from his motorcycle and police recovered the subject drug

No doubt application of S.103, Cr.P.C., had been excluded under S.25 of Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, yet the necessity of employing a private person as mashir could not be overlooked for the reason that the place of incident was a busy place and people were present and it was a day time

Investigating Officer admitted in evidence that it was a busy place and people were available

Thus, there was a deliberate avoidance of obtaining an independent mashir on the free ride of S.25 of the Act 1997

Complainant had not given any explanation as to why he did not request any person to become a witness to the recovery of drug from the place of the incident

Prosecution for protection of S.25 of the Act 1997 had to give justified reasons otherwise, noncompliance of S.103, Cr.P.C., would be fatal

In the case at hand, the failure of the prosecution to gather otherwise available independent witnesses was more than enough to create serious doubts in their case against the appellant

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Admitted fact on record that the brother of applicant had filed an application under S.491, Cr.P.C, alleging illegal detention of applicant at Police Station, however, the same was dismissed due to non-recovery of the applicant in the raid, proceeding conducted by the Magistrate

One more shocking thing was that the SHO of the Police Station who had produced copy of instant FIR before the Court on 08.03.2025 and on the basis of said FIR, the application under S.491, Cr.P.C, moved by his brother was dismissed

Now question arose how the SHO of concerned Police Station knew that applicant was arrested by SHO of other police station, meaning thereby the SHO Police Station concerned had taken away accused and then handed over/shifted his custody to SHO of other Police Station, who subsequently implicated the applicant in this case by foisting contraband

Hence, the defence plea was quite reasonable and carried weight

Surprisingly, a person hailing from a town was booked by SHO, Police Station, which stations was at quite different part of the province; hence, it did not apply to a prudent mind that a person, who had no previous CRO could travel such a long distance along with meager quantity of contraband

Documentary evidence adduced reflected that the police had extended their helping hand to the opponents of the applicant and thereby involved him in that false case by foisting contraband upon him

No independent person was shown to have witnessed the alleged recovery, though the place of recovery was said to be busy area of the town

Further, the police also failed to make video recordings/ take photographs of the search, seizure and arrest

Applicant was in jail since the date of his arrest

Section 9(1) of the Act provided punishment with imprisonment up-to fourteen years and not less than nine years for possessing, importing, or exporting and trafficking 'charas' in contravention of Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of the Act, for more than 1000 grams and up-to 4999 grams in quantity

At bail stage lesser punishment was to be considered

Quantum of punishment could only be decided by the trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence at trial

No previous record showing involvement of the applicant in any crime of the like nature had been placed

In such circumstances, the case of the applicant was squarely fell within the purview of further enquiry, as contemplated by S.51(2) of the Act, read with S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail application was allowed accordingly.

Apparently, the Excise Constable was shown as a witness in the calendar of witness of the police report filed under S.173, Cr.P.C.

Said witness did not step into witness box for corroboration of recovery and evidence of witnesses of recovery for reason best known to the prosecution

Said fact would draw a negative inference under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that if he had come into witness box, he might have not corroborated the recovery and evidence of witnesses regarding contraband

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997 expounded that while making search and arrest, it was not absolute to avoid the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C.

Seizing Officer had to meet the pre-conditionalities

There was an unhindered possibility to engage an independent person to witness the search and arrest of the appellant

Complainant in his examination-in-chief had suppressed the material factum about the presence of private person at the crime scene by stating that "no other private person was found there at that time so he carried out such exercise in presence of Official Mashirs on the spot" but in cross-examination he had conceded that "10/15 private persons were seen at a distance of around 150 meters"

Both the Mashirs had also admitted that "few persons were seen at a distance of about 100 paces, they were 10/12 in numbers"

Thus, there was a deliberate avoidance of obtaining an independent mashir on the free ride of S.25 of the Act, 1997, by false deposition by complainant

Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances.

In the present case, the evidence of the seizing officer complainant author of FIR, investigation officer custodian of store room (Malkhana) showed out that he had not produced the case property and he had not given direct evidence about production of case property

Said witness had just unrealistically identified case property when, it was de-sealed at the request of State Prosecutor

Nothing was brought on record as to how the case property had been presented in Trial Court except the attribution by the State Prosecutor

After perusal of evidence on record, it was found that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate safe custody of case property (contraband) to the police station as well as safe transmission of case property to the office of Chemical Analyst and its subsequent production before the Trial Court

No explanation or reason was available on record for failure to establish and follow accuracy in description, safe custody, it's safe transmission and subsequent safe return for production before the Court backed by the mandatorily required documentation

Such fact led to a conclusion that the defence had shattered the prosecution evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Failure to maintain a secure and verifiable chain of custody necessitated acquittal, as the prosecution could not prove the integrity of the evidence

Absence of a secure and documented chain of custody severely undermined the prosecution's case

Compromised chain of custody and the failure to ensure the secure transmission of evidence, meant that the prosecution had not satisfied the burden of proof

As a result, the accused should be acquitted of all charges as the evidence failed to meet the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.