Law:

Section:

The appellant is confronting indictment before learned Judge, Special Court (CNS) Rawalpindi; he was found in possession of 3 canes, each containing 27 litters of Acetic Anhydride, a contraband designated as psychotropic substance under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The trial is in progress and evidence of recovery witnesses has already been recorded; the Report of Chemical Examiner is before the Court. Being dissatisfied with the report of Chemical Examiner, the appellant moved an application on 9-6-2014 for fresh analysis of the contraband for the purposes of determination of its chemical composition, it was declined way back on 2-7-2014. On the request of the appellant, case property was opened and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the stuff attributed to the appellant was harmless material with no psychotropic characters as benignly felled on the hand of no other than the learned counsel himself and this according to him warranted a new analysis. This second attempt failed as the Court declined the same vide impugned order dated 2-1-2016. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it would be in the interest of justice that the seized contraband be sent to any other laboratory other than the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, at the expense of the appellant. 3. Heard. 4. Prosecution of offences is a State attribute; State functionaries and Institutions are tasked to carry out the job; there is presumption of genuineness to such pursuits. These powers cannot be delegated to private enterprises chosen by a person confronting indictment. Any flaw or defect in the Forensic Report cannot be pressed into service for fresh analysis as onus to drive home the charge is on the prosecution and an accused is not required to establish his innocence through such methodologies. It has been of late…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492