Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 2924 2021 SLD 2924 2021 PLJ 378
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 224-J of 2014, heard on 22.1.2020, Date of hearing: 22.1.2020.
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, JUSTICE, SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, JUSTICE
Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Faridi, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Nisar Ahmad Virk, DPG for State.

GHULAM RASOOL @ SANA ULLAH

VS

STATE, ETC.

Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c)

Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)-- ----S. 9(c)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Recovery of opium, charas, .12 bore guns .9 Mm pistol and live bullets, Rs. 45,000/---Chemical examination report prepared in view of outdated/old interpretation of Rule 6 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 as directory, under which its non-observance would not have invalidated trial--Rule 6 has now been declared as mandatory, non-observance of which shall invalidate result--Said Rule necessarily requires test and analysis by following protocols on alleged drugs by mentioning each test and names of all protocols applied to carry out result without which, report so prepared by Government Analyst shall be invalid--Report of Chemical Examiner said requirement was not fulfilled--Only test performed on receipt items were mentioned--Besides, Chemical Examiners report does not bear number--No evidence to effect that sample was received by ASI (PW-1) from Excise Taxation Officer (ETO) is on record--According to this witness, handed over 20 sealed samples parcels of charas and two packets of opium to him on 15.07.2011 but he deposited it on 19.07.2011 after four days, because stamp of Excise Office was missing but he personally retained contraband and did not deposit it in Malkhana raising the/chain of custody--Even otherwise, said report reveals that 20 received packets were of charas and 2 were of opium, but their separate analytical reports were not made--Lastly, said report did not contain signatures of Chemical Examiner but only of Assistant Chemical Examiner--These illegalities in ascertaining nature of contraband as charas and opium created serious dents in prosecution story, benefit of which must goes to appellant--It cannot be safely said that conviction of appellant was based on prosecution case proved beyond any reasonable doubt--Appeal was allowed by giving him benefit of doubt.   [Pp. 381, 382, 383, 384 385] A, B, C, D, E F 2018 SCMR 2039, 2019 SCMR 930, 2015 SCMR 1002. Order Ali Baqar Najafi, J.--Through this appeal under Section 48 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with Section 410, Cr.P.C.,…
🔒
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