Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 3009 2023 SLD 3009 = 2023 PLD 367
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. D-05 of 2021, decided on 26th October, 2021.
Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Amjad Ali Sahito, JJ
Ishrat Ali Lohar for Applicant. Muhammad Ayoub Qassar, Special Prosecutor ANF for the State.

AITBAR ALI alias BABLU---Applicant

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c) , 10-A

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

----S. 9(c)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Possession of narcotic substances---Right of accused to have the recovered narcotics reweighed---Fair trial---Scope---Application was filed by the petitioner/accused, during the trial, to re-weigh the Charas allegedly recovered from him---Trial Court dismissed said application on the basis that the accused had denied the prosecution case and not owned/admitted the case-property---Validity---Accused had a right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution; it was his right to move application for resending the case-property to the Chemical Examiner for re-examination---When an accused questioned weight of the very narcotic substance showed by the prosecution to have been recovered from him, the Court would be bound to resolve the same before proceeding further in the case---It was not necessary for the accused to admit the property first to gain a right of requesting for re-weighing etc.--Petitioner /accused was essentially challenging the prosecution case over weight of recovered Charas which needed to be resolved for fair dispensation of justice--Trial Court, in the present case, had erred in not appreciating the said aspect of the case---Accused who either had questioned validity of chemical report or weight of the alleged recovered narcotic substance would not be asked first to admit the prosecution case or own the property because if said logic was accepted, there would be no reason/need to either send the property for re-examination or reweighing/re-measurement---High Court set-aside the impugned order being not sustainable in law and allowed the application of the petitioner/accused directing the Trial Court to re-weigh the Charas allegedly recovered from the accused in the presence of all the parties concerned---Criminal revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Ali Muhammad v. The State PLD 2010 SC 623 ref.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register