Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1479 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAQIB RAMZAN vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1479 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAQIB RAMZAN VS State Ss. 9(b) & 21---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898 ), Ch. XXII-A, S. 265-C---Possession of narcotic drugs---Appreciation of evidence---Prejudice of the police official (complainant)---Search warrant from the Court, non-obtaining of---Police Officer (ASI) on whose complaint FIR was registered also assumed the role to investigate the case---Legality---Accused/appellant was already in custody of the police when a habeas corpus petition for his recovery was moved, however, Police asserted that he was arrested in connection with another FIR---Complainant alleged that the accused under custody, during interrogation made disclosure of 504 grams of Charas present in his house---Held, that there was no bar for a police officer to become complainant of the case and also to investigate it, unless prejudice was not pleaded by the accused facing trial or that such police officer was having some grudge or vengeance against the accused---Rancour or hostility of the police officer could be perceived from record based on some confidence inspiring substance---If complainant claimed that the appellant got recovered narcotic substance and that too during the investigation of an earlier registered criminal case, then as a token of fair investigation, he should have let some other police officer probe the matter but, in the present case, he himself performed each and every step of investigation from drafting of complaint to forwarding of accused to the judicial custody---Thus, he (complainant) ensured that no other police officer of higher rank got opportunity to dilate upon the genuineness or otherwise of the acclaimed recovery proceeding and violated the principle of natural justice which laid down that no one should be a judge of his own case---Alleged disclosure was made by the accused within four walls of concerned Police Station wherein some other police officials of higher ranks were also present---Complainant also did not endeavor to get search warrant from the concerned Court---Departure from the necessity of S. 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ('CNSA, 1997') on the part of Searching Officer, without any justifiable reason, in special statute, could not be appreciated---Where a thing was provided in law to be done in a particular manner it had to be done in that manner and if not so done the same would be unlawful---Said principle arose out of maxim "a communi observentia non est recedendum", which became more inflexible in cases arising out of special enactments like CNSA, 1997---Such facts convincingly demonstrated the malice of the complainant which was so deep rooted that he thought it better to investigate the case himself for appropriately grilling the appellant---Such sinister design lead one to believe that narcotics substance was planted to wreck vengeance against the appellant which arose out of a habeas corpus petition filed on his (accused's) behalf---Registration of a criminal case upon a complaint prepared at crime scene was also an important factor, and onus to prove the same also rested upon the shoulders of the prosecution, however, police official who transmitted the draft of complaint to the Police Station was neither cited as witness in report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., nor appeared in the dock during the trial---From the absence of any explanation for withholding the said evidence, Court leaned to hold that probably he was not willing to become a false witness---Record revealed that appellant, who was indicted as a juvenile, was not supplied with copies of documents mentioned in S. 265-C, Cr.P.C., at least seven days prior to framing of charges---Said non-compliance by the Trial Court would amount to vitiating the whole trial---Conflict/contradictions was also found in statements of recovery witnesses regarding place where the recovery memo was signed by the respective witnesses and number of officials of police contingent---Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused with regard to the alleged recovery of 504 grams of Charas beyond any shadow of doubt---High Court set aside conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and appellant stood acquitted---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1479 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SAQIB RAMZAN vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1479 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ