Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SHAHZEB 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 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SHAHZEB VS State Ss. 9(c) & 36---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.5 & 6---Transportation of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Reports of Government Analysts---Result of test or analysis---Protocols applied not mentioned---Effect---Prosecution case was that 33 maunds crushed dodas of post were recovered in 35 toras and two boras from the truck, driven by the accused---Report of Chemical Examiner was vague since it did not show the nature of protocols observed and test applied, hence, there was violation of Rr. 5 & 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---In the instant case, required test was not applied on the basis of which Chemical Examiner had concluded that the samples sent to him for chemical examination contained crushed poppy heads---Chemical Examiner had failed to provide the details that how much quantity, he had tested---When the report was not prepared in the prescribed manner then it might not qualify to be called a report in the context of S. 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and such report of Chemical Examiner would lose its sanctity and it could not be relied upon for the purposes of conviction---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SHAHZEB VS State S. 9(c)---Transportation of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in statement of official witness---Prosecution case was that 33 maunds crushed dodas of post were recovered in 35 toras and two boras from the truck, driven by the accused---As per prosecution story, on 13.05.2014 at 08:00 a.m. complainant along with other contingents of the police halted the truck at picket near a Chowk and apprehended accused along with his co-accused (since PO) and upon search of the truck 33 maunds crushed poppy "Dodaas", which were lying in 35 toras and 02 boras (bags), were recovered---Noticeable that complainant/Investigating Officer had prepared complaint on 13.05.2014 at 09:30 a.m. whereas during his cross-examination, he had stated that it took 5 to 6 hours in weighing and sampling the contraband---If complainant/Investigating Officer in weighing and sampling process of contraband took time 5 to 6 hours then, such mentioned proceedings would be completed between 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. then how it was possible that without weighing and sampling the recovered contraband detail of same could be mentioned prior to the time in the complaint at 09:30 a.m.---In such way, it was evident from the prosecution evidence that all the proceedings of recovery as well as registration of FIR were completed within a period of one hour and 55 minutes---Said contradictory versions taken by the prosecution witness, who was complainant as well as Investigating Officer of the case was not minor in nature rather it touched the root of the case and badly damaged the case of the prosecution and was also sufficient to create dent in the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SHAHZEB VS State S. 9(c)--- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Transportation of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding material evidence---Important witness given up---Prosecution case was that 33 maunds crushed dodas of post were recovered in 35 toras and two boras from the truck, driven by the accused---Record showed that although examination-in-chief of Head Constable/recovery witness was recorded on 22.08.2016 but the cross-examination upon said witness was reserved for 27.08.2016 as lawyers were observing strike---Subsequently, the prosecution gave up said witness being unnecessary---According to the prosecution case, said witness accompanied the complainant along with other contingent of the Police Station and in his presence alleged contraband was recovered from the truck driven by the accused---After preparing complaint, complainant sent the said witness along with complaint for registration of formal FIR at Police Station---In such situation, examining of the said witness, who carried the complaint to the Police Station for registration of crime report, was necessary but said witness was given up by the prosecution without any cogent reasoning---Thus, adverse inference in the light of Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could be drawn, which casted serious doubt upon the story of the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SHAHZEB VS State If a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, that should be done in that manner and not otherwise. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SHAHZEB VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of even a slightest doubt in the prosecution case must be extended to the accused. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SHAHZEB VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle--- Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt will be sufficient to cast doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and the benefit of said doubt has to be extended in favour of the accused not as a matter of grace or concession but as a matter of right. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SHAHZEB VS State S. 9(c)---Transportation of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody and safe transmission of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory not established---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that 33 maunds crushed dodas of post were recovered in 35 toras and two boras from the truck, driven by the accused---In the trial, it was essential for the prosecution to establish through cogent and convincing evidence that the alleged contraband was seized from the possession of the accused and was kept in safe custody in the Malkhana at police station and thereafter samples separated from each tora/bora of contraband were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner for analysis but there was no explanation for prosecution's failure to establish safe custody of recovered contraband---Samples so deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner could not be tagged with samples taken from the seized substance from the possession of the accused---Thus, no evidence was available to connect the report of Chemical Examiner with the substance that was seized from the possession of the accused---In that view of the matter the prosecution had not been able to establish that after the alleged recovery the substance so recovered was either kept in safe custody or that the samples taken from the recovered substance had safely been transmitted to the office of the Chemical Examiner without the same being tampered with or replaced while in transit---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case SHAHZEB vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1720 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ