- —Section 9(c)—Control of Narcotic substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001—Rules 4 & 5—possession and transportation of charas—safe custody & transmission of sample–Held: it was enjoined upon the prosecution to establish that from the moment of seizure till delivery, the contraband remained in secure and safe custody—non-production of the respective witnesses, to prove and establish the alleged fact of safe seizure, taking of sample, storage, transmission and dispatch to the Chemical Examiner leads to adverse conclusion. Farrah Ayyub Versus State & another 2021 SCR 516 (A&B) 2021 SCMR 451, 2018 SCMR 2039 & 2019 SCMR 1300 rel.
- —Section 9(c)—possession and transportation of 3 kg charas–proof of—delay—transmission of sample to Chemical Examiner–sample was taken only from one of three allegedly recovered bundles coupled with the fact that the sample was sent for the chemical examination after a delay of 08 days, creates doubt in the prosecution version. Farrah Ayyub Versus State & another 2021 SCR 516 (D)
- —Section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001—-Rules 3,4&5—Possession of Narcotic—report of Chemical Examiner—credibility of the recovery proceedings is eroded if the quantity found by the analyst is less than the quantity sealed and sent—it creates doubt that it was not the sample which was recovered and sent to the examiner. Farrah Ayyub Versus State & another 2021 SCR 516 (E&F) 2019 SCMR 1217 rel.
- —Section 9(c) —custody and transportation of charas—reappraisal of evidence— discrepancy in weight of sample casts a dent on the credibility of prosecution but the same is not enough to disbelieve the entire case. Khursheed Hussain Shah v. State & another 2022 SCR 334 (B) 2008 16 SC 417 ref
- —Section 9(c) —possession and transportation of Narcotic—re-appraisal of evidence— absence of apparent reason to falsely implicate the accused for possession of 4 kg narcotic, negates the hypothesis of fake imposition—nothing is on record that the witnesses have any animosity or ill-will towards accused—thus, it cannot be safely considered that the accused has falsely been implicated. Khursheed Hussain Shah v. State & another 2022 SCR 334 (C)
- — section 9(c) — section 25, CNSA, 1997 — section 103, Cr.PC, 1898 —compliance of provision of section 103, for the purpose of recovery excluded in cases of CNSA — Argument: the police did not associate the independent witnesses, hence, violated the provisions of section 103, Cr.PC — Held: the provisions of section 103, Cr.PC, as far as this argument is concerned, it has no substance for the reason that the provision of section 103 Cr.PC, had been excluded under the purview of section 25, CNSA. Argument repelled. Khaqan v. State through Advocate General 2023 SCR 428 (C)
- Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 — — section 9(c) and section 29 — presumption of guilt against accused, who found in possession of narcotics, unless rebutted by accused — Held: pursuant to section 29 of CNSA, the presumption would be that a person who was found in possession of narcotics had committed an offence unless otherwise proved — the duty has been caste to presume in the trial that accused has committed an offence under CNSA, unless contrary is proved. In such a state of affairs, no concession can be extended to the accused on the basis of such plea. Khaqan v. State through Advocate General 2023 SCR 428 (E)
- — section 9 and Section 20 — delay in sending the contraband to the chemical examiner—provision mandatory or directory — Held: the provision of section 20, CNSA is directory in nature and non-compliance thereof could not be considered as a strong ground for grant of bail. Khaqan v. State through Advocate General 2023 SCR 428 (F) PLD 2009 SC 39 & 2018 SCMR 2039 Rel.
- — Sections 9 (c) & 25—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898–section 103—reappraisal of evidence—recovery of Narcotics–official witnesses—evidence of—provisions of section 103 Cr.P.C. are excluded u/s. 25 of CNSA—non-compliance of section 103 Cr.P.C., cannot be considered a strong ground for holding the case of the prosecution as fatal—it is consistent view that police officials are competent witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded as mostly people show hesitance and reluctance due to exasperating legal procedure and lack of security and protection to witnesses. Khursheed Hussain Shah v. State & another 2022 SCR 334 (G & H) 2010 SCMR 141, rel
- — section 21 — offence under section 9 (c) — arrest seizure of narcotic substances and investigation by an unauthorized officer mere an irregularity — u/s 21, ordinarily an officer with the rank of SI or above is authorized to arrest and seize narcotics — it is not an absolute rule — there may be exceptional circumstances where prompt action is necessary and a lower ranking police officer finds an individual in possession — possession of narcotics — in such urgent situation, it would be unreasonable to suggest that police officer should let the person go — the guilt of innocence of an accused is not contingent upon the competence or rank of arresting officer — mere involvement of an officer without specified authorization in the investigation does not automatically render the trial invalid — the provisions of section 21 are generally seem as advisory or directory in nature, non-compliance of these provisions are usually considered an irregularity that does not fundamentally undermine the overall validity of a trial or conviction — this irregularity is typically curable — Saeed Pardesi versus The State 2023 SCR 1114 (A) 2009 SCMR 291, 2003 SCMR 1237 & PLD 1997 SC 408 rel.
- — section 25 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 — section 103 — recovery witness — effect of — non-joining of independent witness — applicability of section 103 Cr.PC, in narcotic cases has been excluded — non-inclusion of any private witness is not a serious defect — the evidence of Police Officials would be competent and their evidence cannot be discarded — the police witness furnished straight forward and confidence inspiring evidence — nothing on record that witnesses deposed maliciously, people do not cooperate and give consent to be cited as witness of recovery because it invites annoyance of drug mafia — in such cases police witness are good witness until & unless mala-fide is established — mere status of one as official would not alone prejudice the competence of such witness until he is proved to be interested who has motive to falsely implicate an accused or has previous enmity with accused. Rafaqat Hussain versus The State 2023 SCR 643 (A)
- — section 25 and 9 (c) — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1998 — section 103 — applicability of — mode of search and arrest — the provisions of section 103, Cr.Pc, have been excluded under the purview of section 25 CNSA — recovery was made on highway, from a moving vehicle or roadside — the argument that police violated the provisions of section 103, Cr.Pc is not available to convict. Saeed Pardesi versus The State 2023 SCR 1114 (B & C) 2022 SCR 334, 2014 PCrLJ 662 & 2011 PCrLJ 277 ref.
- — section 25 and 9 (c) — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 — section 103 — applicability of — mode of search and arrest — the provisions of section 103, Cr.PC, have been excluded under the purview of section 25 CNSA — Contention that the police did not associate the private witnesses at the time of arrest of the convictappellant hence, violated the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. As far as this argument is concerned, it has no substance for the reason that the provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. are excluded under the purview of section 25, CNSA—It is clear from section 25 of CNSA, that it exclude operation of section 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases, the provisions of section 103, Cr.PC is not available to the convictappellant. Contention repelled. Arshad Mehmood vs The State 2024 SCR 338 (A)
error: Content is protected !!