Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2186 2017 SLD 2186 2017 YLR 878
Balochistan High Court
Cr. A. No. 261 of 2016, decision Dated: 28-11-2016, hearingDate : 22-11-2016.
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, JUSTICE, ABDULLAH BALOCH, JUSTICE
Muhammad Shabir Rajpoot for Appellant.Abdul Latif Kakar, Additional P.G. for the State.

WAQAS ALIVS THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S.9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R.4(2)---Seizure of narcotics---Chemical analysis---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in sending samples of contraband for analysis---Validity---Record showed that alleged contraband was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis after lapse of one month and twenty four days from the date of its recovery---Investigating Officer ought to have sent the samples for analysis within 72 hours to the Forensic Science Laboratory as required by R.4(2) Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---No explanation was available to show that during the intervening period, whether the samples were kept in safe custody and that the same was not manipulated or replaced/ changed---Delay of one month in sending the sample for examination would cast serious doubt about the prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused---Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court against accused persons were set-aside in circumstances. (b) Sentence--- ----Principle---Where harsher sentence was involved, stricter proof was required to substantiate the charge. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss.9(c) & 36---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 5 & 6---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Chemical Examiner Report ---Proof---Record showed that Report of Chemical Examiner bore only one signature of the Analyst---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 prescribed Form-II, which stipulated the signatures of two authorized officers of the Laboratory---Report was silent about the necessary protocol, 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 "raw charas"---Said Report did not mention the name of police officer, who had taken the contraband to the office of the Chemical Examiner---Admittedly,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register