MUHAMMAD RASOOL vs State S — 2022 SCMR 1145 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD RASOOL VS State S. 9(c)---Possession and transportation of 11.5 kilograms of cannabis---Reappraisal of evidence---Forensic report contained a detailed description of analysis undertaken by the Chemical Examiner by mentioning each test, carried out to confirm the narcotic character of the samples---Relevant witnesses appeared in court to establish safe custody of the contraband as well as transmission of samples to the laboratory---Conviction of accused under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentence of imprisonment for life were maintained---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1145 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RASOOL VS State S. 9---Narcotic cases---Narcotic sealed in parcels at the time of its seizure and mentioned in the recovery memo---De-sealing of parcels during the course of cross-examination on the request of defence counsel---Plea of discrepancy in the weight and texture of the contraband as mentioned in the recovery memo and that found at the time of de-sealing of parcels during cross-examination---Supreme Court deprecated such practice of defence counsel moving a belated application for de-sealing of parcels to find out such discrepancy, notwithstanding, a plea of denial and false implication from the beginning of the trial, and observed that it was rather intriguing to comprehend as to how an accused pleading innocence, all of a sudden in the midst of the trial, learnt about a change, having occurred in weight or texture of the contraband kept in safe custody; that there was no occasion for the trial Judge, in the absence of any plausible reason, to obligingly accede to such a request for an exercise, manifestly calculated to subvert the prosecution case; that such discrepancy was not possible without connivance of Moharrir Malkhana and the Naib Court, therefore, it was imperative for the prosecution to keep a watchful and vigilant eye upon its unscrupulous functionaries so as to ensure that stream of justice ran pure and clean, and that any attempt or act to destroy or contaminate evidence lawfully collected was a cognizable offence in itself, commission whereof, must be visited with zero tolerance. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1145 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RASOOL VS State art. 10-a---Fair trial, right of---Scope---Fair trial is not a one-way affair; it also requires an accused and his agents, pleading innocence, to conduct themselves in a manner above board, in accordance with law; their pursuit is only justified insofar as it is in accordance with the means sanctioned by law. Head NotesCase Description

MUHAMMAD RASOOL vs State S — 2022 SCMR 1145 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR