Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 318 2021 SLD 318 2021 YLR 23
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 11595 of 2019, decided on 12th October, 2020, Date of hearing: 12th October, 2020.
MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, JUSTICE
Saleem Ullah Khan Balouch for Appellant. Waqas Anwar, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

RIAZ AHMAD

VS

THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c),36

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001

Section: 6

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 9(c) 36---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 6---Possession of narcotics---Reports of Government Analysts---Report of test---Non-mentioning of full protocols---Effect---Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 1110 grams of opium---Report of Forensic Laboratory did not contain the details of the protocols and the test applied at the time of analysis of sample of narcotic---Report failing to describe the details of the full protocols and the tests applied was inconclusive, unreliable, suspicious and untrustworthy and did not meet the evidentiary presumption attached to report of the Government Analyst under S.36(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt was sufficient to cast doubt about the veracity of prosecution case and the benefit of doubt had to be extended in favour of the accused not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others 2018 SCMR 2039 and Khair-ul-Bashar v. The State 2019 SCMR 930 rel. Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Akhtar Ali and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 6 and Muhammad Zaman v. The State and others 2014 SCMR 749 ref. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9---Possession of narcotics---Scope---Provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, provide stringent punishments, therefore, their proof has to be construed strictly and the benefit of any doubt in the prosecution case must be extended to the accused. Muhammad Hashim v. The State PLD 2004 SC 856 ref. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Sentence---Standard of proof---Scope---Harder the sentence, stricter the standard of proof. Ameer Zeb v. The State PLD 2012 SC 380 ref. (d) Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001--- ----R.6---Report of result of test---Scope---Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, makes it imperative on an analyst to mention result of material analyzed with full protocols…
🔒
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