Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1783 2021 SLD 1783 2021 PCRLJ 950
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. S-36 of 2020, decided on 14th May, 2020, Date of hearing: 14th May, 2020.
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Ashiq Ali Jatoi for Appellant. Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G. for the State.

SAMAD KHAN

VS

THE STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 269,270,337-J

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 269, 270 337-J---Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, causing hurt by means of a poison---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody---Non-recording of statement of sample bearer---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused was found in possession of four sacks, each was found containing 20 Kilograms of Betel Nuts alleged to be poisonous and was intended to spread infection/disease likely to cause hurt to person or to be dangerous/poisonous to human lives---Admittedly, there was no independent witness to the incident and only 05 Kilograms of recovered substance had been subjected to chemical examination---Nothing was on record as to from which of the sacks, the alleged substance was segregated by the complainant as sample---Sample had been sent to the Chemical Examiner with delay of about thirteen days, which was not explained plausibly---Report of Chemical Examiner showed that the substance analyzed by him was not found to be recommended for human consumption within the meaning of S. 5 of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 and it also contravened the provision of R. 11 of Sindh Pure Food Rules, 1965---Neither of such section was applied by the police against the accused while submitting the final charge sheet---No hurt was caused to any one by means of alleged substance by the accused---Neither the in-charge of Malkhana nor the person who had taken the alleged substance to the Chemical Examiner had been examined by the prosecution to prove its safe custody and transmission---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ikramullah and others v. The State 2015 SCMR 1003 rel. JUDGMENT IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.--- The appellant by way of instant appeal has impugned judgment dated 31.03.2020, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under; For offence under section 270, P.P.C., accused is sentenced to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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