AHMED ALI vs State S — 2023 SCMR 781 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.

AHMED ALI VS State S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 4, 5 & 6---Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 22.16, 22.18, 22.70, 27.11 & 27.12---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders (Civil and Criminal), Rr. 14-E, 14-F & 14-H---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Non-production of recovered narcotics or vehicle in Trial Court---Effect---Case property is always relevant for the decision of the case because if the narcotics are recovered from any accused, the same should have been shown in court, and then the report of the laboratory would be helpful to the prosecution---Likewise, in narcotics cases, the conviction and sentence are based on the possession of the narcotics or on aiding, abetting or associating with the narcotics offences---In such eventuality, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to produce the case property before the court to show that this is the narcotics/case property that was recovered from accused's possession---However, if the narcotics are destroyed under section 516-A, Cr.P.C, then, such destruction should be done after issuing notice to the accused, and the destruction should be done in the presence of the accused or his representative---Magistrate is required to prepare samples of the narcotics substance that was ultimately destroyed so that a representative (sample) of the destruction process could be produced in the Court; besides, the certificate so issued by the Magistrate would also be relevant and the same should be exhibited in the Court---When the material (narcotics) is neither produced nor exhibited, the presumption can be drawn that it is not in existence at all---When the best evidence, i.e., the case property/narcotics, vehicle, etc., is withheld by the prosecution and there is no plausible explanation for the non-production of the same in court, an adverse inference or assumption against the prosecution could be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and it can easily be presumed that no such material/narcotics is in existence---In the present case, the exhibits include an application to the SHO, the FIR , a recovery memo and a report of the chemical examiner which were produced during trial; however, the narcotics substance and the vehicle, which formed the case property, were neither produced in court nor exhibited by the prosecution without plausible explanation---Prosecution had, thus, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused persons were acquitted of the charge.

AHMED ALI vs State S — 2023 SCMR 781 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 SCMR