Seizure of narcotic
Seizure of narcotic legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Prosecution case was that sixty eight kilograms charas was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by accused
Samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner with delay of six days and were kept at police station
Dispatching of sample beyond 72 hours was not a sine qua non
Mere delay in sending the sample to the laboratory was not at all fatal to the prosecution case because Rr. 4 & 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, did not place any 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
Nothing was available on record to establish that the parcels were ever tampered with
Evidence led by the prosecution established that when the parcel was received by the said agency same was intact
Even otherwise on the day of recovery the Investigation Officer handed over the parcel of recovered narcotics to official witness/ASI, who after registering the same in Register No. 19 kept the same in Malkhana in safe custody and handed over the same to other official witness who deposited the same to Forensic Science Laboratory and obtained the report
Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the accused
Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.
Record showed that the alleged contraband was recovered on 23.9.2014, but the samples of the property were received in the office of Chemical Examiner on 26.9.2014 as was evident from the report of the Chemical Examiner
No explanation had been offered as to whether during the intervening period the contraband articles were placed in safe custody or not which made the same doubtful
Complainant/Investigating Officer in his evidence had stated that he had sent the samples of property to the Chemical Examiner through Excise Constable on the very same day but the same were not received by the Chemical Examiner and were returned back
Investigating Officer, thereafter, himself took the property and handed over to the Chemical Examiner on 26.09.2014
However, the Investigating Officer had failed to furnish any explanation or justification as to why consequent upon return of the samples by the Chemical Examiner on 23.9.2014, he did not take the same again on the same day or atleast on the next day and waited till 26.06.2016
Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Investigating Officer was questioned time and again regarding the remaining case property and its safe custody, who initially stated that he did not know that where the same was lying but later on stated that it was lying in the custody of the Moharrir of the concerned Police Station
Admittedly neither the statement of the Moharrir was recorded nor an abstract from Register No.19 was collected and placed on the record
Circumstances suggested that dispatch of the test samples from the Police Station to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory had not been established in the way and in the manner as was commanded by the law
Forensic Science Laboratory Report so collected, therefore, could not be accepted and relied upon
Prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused, in circumstances
Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.
Prosecution case was that twelve kilograms heroin was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by accused
Alleged recovery was effected on 14.05.2013 while the samples were received in Forensic Science Laboratory on 19.09.2013
During that interregnum in whose custody the samples were lying and secondly Foot Constable (mentioned in Forensic Science Laboratory Report) had not been examined by the prosecution in order to prove the safe custody and its onwards transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory
Prosecution had been miserably failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, in circumstances
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Record showed that the alleged recovery was effected on 09.6.2017, whereas the samples were received in the Forensic Science Laboratory on 13.6.2017
Nothing was available on file to tell that as to where the samples were lying during the intervening period
Even official witness kept quiet on that aspect of the case being Moharrir of the police station
Factum of recovery was further doubted when the witness, who allegedly collected the test samples from the Moharrir and handed over in the office of the Chemical Examiner, was questioned as to whether any receipt for taking the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory was prepared and handed over by the Moharrir, he answered in the affirmative, but failed to establish that the receipt was handed over to the Investigating Officer to be placed on file
Moharrir of the police station when appeared as witness did not utter even a single word in that respect
Overall impact of the infirmities so erupted would put a heavy cost on the prosecution and went to the roots of the case
Such evidence could not lead to conviction
Dispatch of the test samples from the police station to the Forensic Science Laboratory had not been established in the way and in the manner as was proposed by the law, hence, the Forensic Science Laboratory Report so tendered could not be accepted and relied upon
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Record showed that the alleged recovery was effected on 1.1.2016 at about 5.30 p.m., but Forensic Science Laboratory Report showed that the sample were received by the Expert on 26.1.2016 with delay of about twenty five days and such delay had not been explained
Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, provided that such exercise was required to be completed within 72 hours of the recovery
No plausible explanation was brought on record by the prosecution in that regard
Said delay was fatal to the prosecution case
Prosecution had failed to examine the Police Officer, who had taken the sample to the Chemical Examiner, so that he could have been cross-examined on the point as to in whose custody the sealed parcels of the samples of charas were lying about twenty five days, which had made the case of prosecution doubtful
Safe custody and safe transmission of the seized narcotic had not been established
Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory did not contain the full protocols of the test applied for, therefore, the same was not reliable
Said report being inconclusive and unreliable could not be made basis to sustain conviction and sentence of the accused
Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted, in circumstances.
Section 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 cast burden upon the accused to establish his innocence absolving him from the allegations of recovered substance
Prosecution had only to show by evidence that accused was in physical custody or directly concerned with recovered narcotic substance.
Prosecution case was that 70.800 kilograms charas Garda, 15.600 kilograms charas Pukhta, 20.400 kilograms opium and one kilogram heroin were recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle of accused persons
Record showed that accused persons had admitted the presence of the narcotics in the vehicle and recovery of the same while they were present in the vehicle
Presumption would be that accused persons were in possession of illicit articles under S. 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, unless the contrary was proved
Accused persons could not discharge burden of proof to the contrary
Prosecution, in circumstances, had proved the charge against the accused persons
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Ninety kilograms charas was alleged to have been recovered in three bags from the car of accused, out of which, one kilogram from each bag was separated and sent for chemical analysis
Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 provided two prescribed Forms i.e. Form-1 and Form-2; Form-1 had been prescribed as per Rule-5, which provided procedure and manner for sending the sample to the laboratory and receipt in the laboratory and the examination of sample with reference to the test memorandum and Form-2 described the manner and procedure for certification of test or analysis of narcotics substance
Form-1 was not available on the record; three reports were produced by the prosecution as three parcels of the chars were dispatched for chemical analysis
Said three reports had only one signature of the analyst, whereas Form-2, stipulated signatures of two authorized officers of the laboratory
Signatures of two authorized officers on the chemical analysis report were mandatory under the Rules and it was necessary that the report would contain the necessary protocol and procedure/tests applied for in reaching the conclusion that the sample received by the laboratory was narcotic substance
Report which suffered from legal flaws could not be considered as conclusive proof and would not be termed or considered as admissible in evidence
Non-conclusive and non-speaking laboratory report, which was not compiled according to mandate of law and rules framed thereunder, could not be relied for sustaining the conviction
Accused was acquitted in circumstances, by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court.
Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provided that, after successfully discharging the initial burden of proof by the prosecution, the accused had to discharge the onus of his innocence through cogent and reliable evidence
Burden could not be shifted to the accused, when the prosecution had either failed to establish the recovery or to prove that the recovered articles were contraband items
Section 29 of the Act did not absolve the prosecution from the primary duty to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt
Burden on prosecution to prove its case could not be shifted to the accused in an artificial manner
Law contemplated and provided a procedure for doing any act, when such procedure was not complied with, that would amount to violation of law
Circumstances established that, in the present case, prosecution had failed to discharge the onus
Accused was acquitted in circumstances, by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
Prosecution case was that 4,400 grams Charas Garda in four packets was recovered from the lap of accused, while he was driving a vehicle
Record showed that memo of recovery and complaint were not in one handwriting
Carbon copy of FIR had been exhibited without application for producing secondary evidence
No explanation about non-production of original FIR was on record
Despite spy information, Investigating Officer went to the place of recovery without the weighing scale
Prosecution witnesses had contradicted each other on the point of scale and manner in which proceedings were conducted
Samples were not prepared with weighing process
Case property (car) was taken into possession but same was not produced before the Trial Court
Record established that investigation of the case was not entrusted to the complainant by the Station House Officer of the police
Complainant had himself assumed the role of Investigating Officer
Incurable illegalities, glaring discrepancies and major contradictions were found in the case
Circumstances created doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused
Accused was acquitted, in circumstances, by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court.
"Seizure of narcotic", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124959534
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Seizure of narcotic"
2007 SCMR 393
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. PERVEEN alias MANO and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2006 M L D 361
Mst. GRANA — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Peshawar2025 Y L R 2801
Maqbool Ali — Petitioner Versus The State and anothers — Respondents
Court: Lahore2006 P Cr
NIAZ MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Peshawar2011 Y L R 1483
KHAN MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: Karachi2025 P Cr
Ahmed Khan — Apellant Versus The State — Respondent
Court: Sindh (Larkana Bench)2007 Y L R 904
SABIR KHAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Peshawar2017 P Cr
HUSSAIN BUX alias KABACHO CHANNA — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Sindh (Larkana Bench)2008 Y L R 1560
SHAHID HUSSAIN and others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Karachi2018 Y L R Note 123
Dil MURAD — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Sindh (Sukkur Bench)