ZAFAR KHAN vs State S — 2022 SCMR 864 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.

ZAFAR KHAN VS State S. 9(c)--- Possession and transportation of 25 kilograms of cannabis---Reappraisal of evidence---Recovery memo, witness of---Doubtful and contradictory testimony---Complainant (police official) when appearing as a prosecution witness before the Trial Court stated that the contraband material was taken into possession through the recovery memo but did not mention the name of the witnesses in whose presence, the recovery memo was prepared nor did he mention their signatures upon it---However, another police official, claiming to be the recovery witness, appeared before the Trial Court, and contended that he signed the recovery memo, but did not give details about the document, which he claimed to have signed nor produced the same in the Court; he did not refer to the recovery memo, which was produced by the complainant---Alleged recovery witness was not even confronted with the recovery memo at the time of recording his statement to confirm the contents of the same and his signatures upon it---Moreover, complainant did not say about the signatures or identification mark of any of the recovery witness upon any parcel allegedly prepared at the place of the occurrence---Recovery witness also did not utter a single word with regard to the preparation of the parcels of the contraband material in his presence at the spot nor did he mention signing or putting mark of identification upon any of the parcels, which showed that if any parcel was prepared by the complainant, it was not witnessed by the recovery witness---Under such circumstances, it was not safe to believe that the material contained in these parcels, relied upon by the complainant was the same, which was alleged to have been recovered from the accused persons---Complainant and the only alleged witness of the recovery did not corroborate each other on material points, therefore, their statements did not inspire confidence about the reliability of the recovery memo, as such, the prosecution had not been able to establish the recovery of the contraband material from the accused persons---Jail petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused persons were acquitted of the charges against them. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 864 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ZAFAR KHAN VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Recovery memo, preparation of---Scope and purpose---In the cases of narcotic substances, recovery memo is a basic document, which should be prepared by the Seizing Officer, at the time of the recovered articles, containing a list thereof, in presence of two or more respectable witnesses and memo has to be signed by such witnesses---Main object of preparing the recovery memo at the spot and with signatures of the witnesses is to ensure that the recovery is effected in presence of the marginal witnesses, honestly and fairly, so as to exclude the possibility of false implication and fabrication---Once the recovery memo is prepared, the next step for the prosecution is to produce the same before the Trial Court, to prove the recovery of the material and preparation of the memo through the scribe and the marginal witnesses. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 864 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ZAFAR KHAN VS State S. 9(c)---Possession and transportation of cannabis---Reappraisal of evidence---Samples---Safe custody of samples and their transmission to the Chemical Examiner--- Significance--- Prosecution had the responsibility to prove the recovery of the contraband material from the accused, its safe custody and sending the samples for chemical analysis without undue delay to avoid any possibility of substitution---Where the recovered contraband material, including the pieces deducted for the purpose of chemical analysis were not in safe custody and transmission of the samples to the Chemical Examiner was doubtful, possibility of their tampering could not be ruled out. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 864 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ZAFAR KHAN VS State S. 9(c)--- Possession and transportation of 25 kilograms of cannabis--- Reappraisal of evidence--- Contradictory stance of complainant (police official) and recovery witness (police official) with respect to secret cavities of the vehicle---Complainant alleged that beneath the switch board of the vehicle, secret cavities were found---To the contrary, the recovery witness, stated before the Trial Court that one packet of charas was recovered from beneath the switch board and upon opening the switch board, secret cavities were found there and the remaining packets were recovered therefrom---Record also showed that there was space only for the air conditioner under the switch board, wherefrom the recovery of charas had been alleged---Therefore, the witnesses were not certain about the exact location of the cavities and recovery of the contraband material therefrom---Jail petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused persons were acquitted of the charges against them. Head NotesCase Description

ZAFAR KHAN vs State S — 2022 SCMR 864 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR