Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1962 2021 SLD 1962 2021 PLJ 1138
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 647 of 2016, decided on 25.1.2021, Date of hearing: 25.1.2021.
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, JUSTICE, SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, JUSTICE.
Mr. Abdul Wahid Qureshi, Advocate for Appellant Mr. Saeed-ur-Rehman Khan, Special Prosecutor for ANF/State.

SOHAIL ALMAS

VS

STATE

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 narcotic 8 kg of heroin--According to prosecution’s case appellant was holding a baggage tag, copy of which was found tagged with bag but during cross examination, it stands admitted by complainant (PW-3) himself that no tag was available with bag that was produced in Court--Though number of baggage tag allegedly recovered from possession of appellant at time of his arrest in departure lounge of Benazir Bhutto International Airport was taken into possession vide recovery memo yet neither of two baggage tags could be produced in evidence--If it was there on bag that was taken into possession and thereafter, secured by investigation agency, then it ought to have been produced in evidence against appellant and non-production of same leads this Court to draw an inference adverse to prosecution under Article 129(g) of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--Original off load proforma could not be produced even by recorded as a Court Witness (CW-2) during his statement while statement of CW-1 Station Manager, Qatar Airways, Islamabad reveals that record of off load proforma and other connected record was no more available in his office having been destroyed as per policy of Airline after keeping same safe for three months only--In instant case, report prepared by Government Analyst, office of Chemical Examiner to Government of Punjab, though carries names of test applied yet Analyst has not bothered even to mention test protocols applied in carrying out required tests which of course is against mandate of Rule 6 hence, it is not safe to rely upon such report in such case of narcotics cannot be convicted and sentenced only on basis of oral assertions unless it is established with certitude that material allegedly recovered from possession of appellant was a narcotic that, in our view, prosecution failed to do--circumstances discussed hereinabove renders prosecution case seriously doubtful and as such, a single circumstance when creates reasonable doubt regarding prosecution case, same is sufficient to extend benefit to accused--Appeal allowed. Control of…
🔒
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