Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 2954 2007 SLD 2954 2007 PLD 238
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 551 of 2005, decided on 19th January, 2007, dates of hearing: 7th and 8th December, 2006
RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI AND MRS. YASMIN ABBASI, JJ
Syed Ashfaq Hussain Rizvi, Special Prosecutor, ANF for Appellant. Shaikh Ghulam Sabir Niazi for
Respondent.

THE STATE/ANTINARCOTICS FORCE through Deputy Director (Law), Karachi

VS

MUHAMMAD IRSHAD

Law:

Section:

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----Ss. 6, 9(c) & 48---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.516-A & 537---Destruction of recovered property---Procedure---Presence of accused at the time of destruction of recovered property---Necessity---Defects in destruction of property---Effect---When application under S.516-A, Cr.P.C. for destruction of remaining recovered property was filed by the prosecution, notice of such application was not given to accused and order was also passed in absence of the accused---No doubt under S.516-A, Cr.P.C., it was provided that property could be destroyed and sample could be prepared, which could represent the entire property, but it would not mean that the sample should be prepared in the absence of accused as it was against the principles of natural justice---In order to give full opportunity to accused to participate in the process and safeguard his interest, it should be done in his presence---Was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have issued notice to accused in respect of application under S.516-A, Cr.P.C. and order could have been passed after hearing him, but in the present case order was passed in his absence---Accused was also not given an opportunity to verify as to whether the sample, which was to be used against him, was drawn from the property of the case---Valuable right of accused, was infringed in circumstances and his defence was prejudiced, which had occasioned a failure of justice---Defects in the destruction of property were such which could not be cured under S.537, Cr.P.C.---Such proceedings could not be fairly used against accused particularly when all proceedings were conducted in his absence, without his notice and knowledge---Memorandum showed that samples were sealed, but when property was produced in the court, it was not intact and no seal of the court or signature of the Judge was found on the sample---Sample produced in the court, had not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that same was drawn from the case property---Prosecution, in circumstances had failed to produce the required evidence of the property before the Trial Court---Trial Court had considered the…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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