HAMEEDULLAH vs State S — 2022 MLD 1701 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

HAMEEDULLAH VS State S.9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R.4(2)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chemical analysis---Delay of ten days in sending samples of contraband for analysis---Effect---Prosecution case was that 300 kilograms of charas was recovered from the vehicle driven by accused---Prosecution's case was that the samples were transmitted to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory but the safe custody and transmission could not be proved by the prosecution because according to Forensic Science Laboratory Report the samples of charas were received through Sub-Inspector with delay of ten days---Such delay had not been explained---Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, provided that said exercise was required to be completed within 72 hours of the recovery---No plausible explanation was brought on record by the prosecution as to why such inordinate delay was caused in the completion of said exercise by the Investigating Officer---Said fact was fatal to the prosecution case---Prosecution had also failed to examine the constable who had taken the sample to the Chemical Examiner, so that he could have been cross-examined on the point as to in whose custody the sealed parcel of the samples of charas were lying about ten days---Prosecution also did not produce the Head Mohrar of the police station about keeping the parcels in Malkhana---Investigating Officer also did not state anything as to when he handed over the parcels to the Head Mohrar, who allegedly kept the same in the Malkhana in safe custody for ten days---Said fact made the case doubtful and any doubt if arose in the links of the chain of prosecution story, the benefit of the same would go to the accused---Prosecution, in circumstances, could not prove prompt registration of the FIR and safe custody and transmission of the representative samples to Government Analyst, thus, the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Head NotesCase Description

HAMEEDULLAH vs State S — 2022 MLD 1701 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD