| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3680 2025 SLD 3680 = 2025 SHC 2109 |
Cr. Appeal No.506 of 2023
Justice Tasneem Sultana Justice Syed Fiaz Ul Hassan Shah
Appellants : 1. Mst. Shireen @ Samına 2. Rasheed through M/s. Abdul Jalil and Sajeel Rehman Advocates Respondent : The State through Mr. Mumtaz Ali Shah APG Sindh
Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Section: 6,9(1)(3)(c)
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 382-B
Summary
The appellants Mst. Shireen Samina and Rasheed were convicted and sentenced for possession of large quantities of charas under sections 6 and 9(1)(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. However, the appeal was allowed due to critical defects in the prosecution's case, primarily the failure to establish a clear and unbroken chain of safe custody for the seized narcotic substances. The prosecution's own record showed contradictory dates regarding custody transfer before the alleged recovery, and no evidence was provided on the return and production of seized samples in court, rendering the Chemical Examiner’s report unreliable. The Supreme Court's principle that any doubt in the chain of custody undermines the prosecution's case was applied, resulting in acquittal on the benefit of doubt.
Core Points
- Appellants were convicted for possessing 1580g and 1130g of charas under CNSA 1997.
- Prosecution failed to establish unbroken, safe custody and secure transmission of narcotics samples.
- Contradiction in police record showed case property handed over before the date of recovery.
- No proof of the narcotics samples' return for court production was provided.
- Chemical Examiner’s report was deemed unreliable due to the custody chain break.
- Precedent cases (Imam Bakhsh, Sakina Ramzan, Tariq Pervez) emphasize strict proof and benefit of doubt in narcotics cases.
- Acquittal granted due to failure of prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt.
Law and Sections Table
| Law/Section | Description |
|---|---|
| Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 | |
| Section 6 | Punishment for possession and trafficking of specified quantities of narcotics |
| Section 9(1)(3)(c) | Punishment related to possession, trafficking, or contravention of narcotic substances |
| Section 382-B CrPC | Provides benefit of doubt to accused in criminal cases |
| Supreme Court precedent: | |
| The State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) | Emphasizes necessity of proving unbroken chain of custody for narcotics from recovery to analysis |
| Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State (2021 SCMR) | Reinforces that break in chain of custody makes chemical report unreliable |
| Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) | Even slightest benefit of doubt must go to accused |
JUDGMENT