| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3412 |
Criminal Appeal No.299 of 2024
Presented By: (Muhammad Asif) JUDGE (Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar) JUDGE
Date of hearing Appellant represented by: The State represented by: The complainant represented by: 12.02.2025 Maulana Muhammad Wajeeh Ullah Khan, Advocate. Mr. Adnan Ali, DDPP for the State with Abdul S.I and Nabi Ullah S.I.
Abdullah.
VERSUS
. The State, etc.
Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Section: 5,4, 7
Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 173, 161, 342, 340(2), 382-B
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 10-A
Precise Summary
The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, arising from an alleged recovery of explosive material, detonators, safety fuse wire, maps of sensitive installations, and other articles by the CTD, Islamabad. Although he had originally been charged under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, he was acquitted of the terrorism-related charges by the trial court but convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
The Islamabad High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery and possession of explosive substances beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted serious inconsistencies in the testimony of the Bomb Disposal Squad officer, who neither confirmed recovery from the appellant nor had his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The prosecution also failed to establish the safe custody and chain of custody of the recovered explosive material, as laboratory samples were dispatched after an unexplained five-day delay.
The Court further held that the prosecution sanction required under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was neither properly exhibited during trial nor put to the appellant in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., rendering it inadmissible against him.