SC Rules: Failure to Prove Safe Custody & Sample Transmission Leads to Acquittal – 2024 SCMR 1408.
 |
| Acquittal in drug case. |
منشیات کے مقدمات میں سیمپل کی محفوظ تحویل ثابت نہ ہو تو ملزم بری — سپریم کورٹ 2024 کا اہم فیصلہ
🔹 سادہ اور جامع اردو خلاصہ (Easy Urdu Summary)
اگر ان میں سے کوئی ایک لنک بھی ثابت نہ ہو تو پورا مقدمہ مشکوک ہو جاتا ہے اور ملزم کو فائدہ دیا جاتا ہے۔
عدالت کے اہم مشاہدات:
جس پولیس افسر نے نمونے لیب پہنچائے، اسے عدالت میں گواہ کے طور پر پیش ہی نہیں کیا گیا۔
فیصلہ:
🔹 قانونی نکات (Key Legal Points for Bloggers & Law Students)
🔹 مختصر تجزیہ (Expert Commentary)
Must read judgement
2024 S C M R 1408
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and
Naeem Akhtar Afghan, JJ
ASIF ALI and another---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE through Prosecutor General Punjab---Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1602 of 2023, decided on 31st May, 2024.
(On appeal against the judgment dated 29.11.2023 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Crl.A. No. 159 of 2023).
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---
----S. 9---Possession of narcotic---Safe custody and transmission of samples---Significance---In the cases under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish each and every step from the stage of recovery, making of sample parcels, safe custody of sample parcels and safe transmission of the sample parcels to the concerned laboratory---This chain has to be established by the prosecution and if any link is missing, the benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused---Prosecution is under a bounded responsibility to drive home the charge against an accused by proving each limb of its case that essentially includes production of the witness tasked with the responsibility of transmitting the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner and failure to do the same can cast away the entire prosecution case.
Javed Iqbal v. The State 2023 SCMR 139; Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State 2021 SCMR 451; Qaiser Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 363; Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2022 SCMR 819; Muhammad Shoaib v. The State 2022 SCMR 1006; Khair ul Bashar v. The State 2019 SCMR 930; The State v. Imran Bakhsh 2018 SCMR 2039; Taimoor Khan v. The State 2016 SCMR 621; Ikram Ullah v. The State 2015 SCMR 1002 and Amjad Ali v. The State 2012 SCMR 577 ref.
(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---
----S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001, R. 4(2)---Police Rules, 1934, R. 22.70---Possession and transportation of charas---Reappraisal of evidence---Safe custody and transmission of the samples to the Forensic Laboratory not established---In the instant case, statements of a Head Constable and Investigating Officer revealed that the seven sample parcels of the charas allegedly recovered on 27.05.2021 were handed over to a Sub-Inspector for transmission to office of the lab on 31.05.2021 i.e. much beyond the seventy two hours of the seizure in violation of Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 ('Rules of 2001') for which no plausible explanation had been offered by the prosecution---According to statement of the Head Constable, he handed over the seven sample parcels to the Sub-Inspector for onward transmission to office of the Lab on 31.05.2021---In order to prove safe transmission of the sample parcels to office of the Lab, the prosecution had not produced said Sub-Inspector before the Trial Court for recording his statement and in this regard no explanation had been offered by the prosecution---During his cross-examination, Head Constable was confronted by the defence counsel with Form 22.70 of Register No.XIX maintained as per Rule 22.70 of the Police Rules, 1934 wherein admittedly no date, month and year had been mentioned in the relevant column No.3 pertaining to the case property/sample parcels of the instant case and in this regard as well no explanation had been offered by the Head Constable or by the Investigating Officer---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners by the Trial Court and maintained by the Appellate Court was result of misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence available on record---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court respectively were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge.
Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Irfan Zia, A.P.G., Punjab for the State.