| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2257 2023 SLD 2257 2023 YLR 2654 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 182346, 197051 and Capital Sentence Reference No. 2-N of 2018, decided on 4th July, 2023.Date of hearing: 20th June, 2023.
Before Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Ali Zia Bajwa, JJ
Imran Raza Khan and Zia-ur-Rehman Chaudhary for Appellant. Zafar Iqbal Chohan, Special Prosecutor ANF for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 182346, 197051 and Capital Sentence Reference No. 2-N of 2018, decided on 4th July, 2023.Date of hearing: 20th June, 2023.
Before Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Ali Zia Bajwa, JJ
Imran Raza Khan and Zia-ur-Rehman Chaudhary for Appellant. Zafar Iqbal Chohan, Special Prosecutor ANF for the State.
SHAKEEL-UR-REHMAN---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Section: 9(c)
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.5 & 6---Transportation of narcotics--- Report of Government Analyst---Result of test or analysis---Prosecution case was that 40.800 kilograms charas was recovered from secret cavity of the car driven by accused---Forensic report reflected that details of protocols of tests had not been provided therein in the spirit of R. 6 of the Rules, 2001---Any report failing to describe in it the details of the full protocols applied for the test would be inconclusive, defective, unreliable and would not meet the evidentiary presumption attached to a report of the Government Analyst under S. 36(2) of the Act, 1997---In the forensic report it was simply mentioned that the submitted samples were identified to contain charas---Rule 6 of the Rules, 2001 made it imperative on an analyst to mention result of sample analyzed with full protocols applied thereon along with other details in the report issued for test/analysis by the Laboratory---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others 2018 SCMR 2039; Khair-Ul-Bashar v. The State 2019 SCMR 930; Shahid Pervaiz v. Ejaz Ahmad and others 2017 SCMR 206; Shafa Ullah Khan v. The State and another 2021 SCMR 2005 and Ameer Zeb v. The State PLD 2012 SC 380 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt would be sufficient to smash the veracity of prosecution case and sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused not as a matter of grace or concession but as of right. Qaisarullah and others v. The State 2009 SCMR 579 rel. JUDGMENT ALI ZIA BAJWA, J.---Through this single judgment we intend to decide Crl. Appeal No. 182346 of 2018 titled 'Shakil-ur-Rehman v. The State and another' filed by Shakil-ur-Rehman appellant under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter 'CNSA, 1997') against his…
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