Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

Section: 9(2)3

(a)   Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---

----S. 9(2)3---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence--Infirmities in prosecution evidence---Prosecution case was that 2600 Ecstasy pills were found present in the shopping bag handed over by the accused to the police and 500 intoxicant Ecstasy pills were also recovered from the vehicle parked at the spot---In the instant case, complainant and Investigating Officer was the same, and when the complainant was also Investigation Officer, there was a heightened risk of bias---Complainant, being interested in the outcome of the case, should not be the judge of his own cause---Investigation should ideally be conducted by a different officer to ensure impartiality and fairness---Two sealed parcels containing 2600 intoxicant "Ecstasy Pills" and 500 Intoxicant "Ecstasy Pills" were sent to Forensic Science Agency through a Constable on 15.11.2023 while as per the Forensic Science Agency Report and the statement of Court witness the said parcels were received on 16.11.2023 which depicted that the chain of custody was missing between 15.11.2023 and 16.11.2023--Investigating Officer sent the whole recovered intoxicant "Ecstasy Pills" for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Agency, and after its analysis, which was completed on 22.03.2024, the chemical report was dispatched to the quarter concerned on 01.04.2024 as evident from the statement of the Court witness--From 01.04.2024 till the exhibition of the alleged case property the prosecution had failed to prove the chain of custody---Moharir Malkhana had failed to utter a single word that he received back the case property from the Forensic Science Agency, through a sample bearer---Alleged recovery of intoxicant "Ecstasy Pills" was not effected from the personal search of the accused/appellant--Prosecution had failed to produce any evidence regarding the lawful possession of the flat in question in the shape of any rent agreement or ownership documents---Two sealed parcels i.e. one sealed parcel said to contain 2600 intoxicant "Ecstasy Pills", while another sealed parcel said to contain 500 intoxicant "Ecstasy pills" were sent to Forensic Science Agency but the forensic report revealed something else---As per Forensic Science Agency Report, 2746 pills were present in parcel No. 1 and 468 pills were present in parcel No. 2 which was contradictory to the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant, beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against the conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Taj Wali and 6 others v. The State PLD 2005 Kar. 128; Muhammad Iftikhar and another v. The State and others 2022 PCr.LJ 1233; Muhammad Nafees and another v. The State 2021 PCr.LJ 63; Abid Ali v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ 1088 and Arzi Gull and others v. The State and others 2020 PCr.LJ 178 rel.