AHMED ALI vs State S — 2023 YLR 1829 ISLAMABAD

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)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that twenty kgs charas (gardha) was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle of the accused---In the present case, the star witness Police Constable, who was recovery witness and complainant/Inspector had been cross-examined at length qua the mode and manner of recovery of contraband but they remained consistent and no discrepancy had been noted---Even vehicle along with its key had been placed on record which further confirmed the prosecution case against the accused---However, complainant acknowledged that he had not verified the record of registration book of vehicle in question through Excise and Taxation Department as letter was written for verification but no reply had been received till recording of his testimony---Said aspect was not to be considered as beneficial to the accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1829 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AHMED ALI VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Non-production of official who took the complaint to Police Station---Inconsequential---Prosecution case was that twenty kgs charas (gardha) was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle of the accused---Defence objected that Police Constable who had taken the complaint to the Police Station for registration of FIR was not produced---However, non-production of said Police Constable was to be considered an irregularity having mitigating effect and nothing more at present stage, especially when 20 Kgs charas had been proved to be recovered from a single person i.e. accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1829 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AHMED ALI VS State Ss. 9(c) & 36---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 5 & 6---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Report of Government analyst---Expert opinion---Scope---Prosecution case was that twenty kgs charas (gardha) was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle of the accused---Record showed that Chemical Analyst Report concluded that samples contained charas (gardha)---Though Trial Court had summoned Senior Scientific Officer appeared as Court Witness and stated that he received 10 sealed parcels, conducted analysis, observed all protocols and care had been applied while the result had separately been made in the register, and report was prepared---Said witness further stated that he also produced protocol form in original which contained complete details of test---Defence heavily relied upon the non-availability of protocols mentioned in exhibited report; however R. 6 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government analysts) Rules, 2001, was mandatory to the extent of mentioning of full protocols in the report of Government analyst while considering such aspect---Trial Court had rightly summoned the author of that report who came in witness box and gave his testimony, explained the report as a result whereof the defence plea of test conducted without protocol lost its admissibility and reliability---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1829 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case AHMED ALI VS State S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Specific plea taken by accused---Prosecution case was that twenty kgs charas (gardha) was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle of the accused---Accused had taken a specific stance in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., that nothing was recovered in shape of narcotics from him---Accused stated that he was a passenger in alleged car and got a lift from "P" to "R" from the driver; that Investigating Officer let off the said driver after getting bribery from him and roped him in the case; and that at the time of arrest, he also told the Investigating Officer that he had no concern with the alleged car as well as narcotics but instead of leaving him, Investigating Officer falsely implicated him in the case---Even when particular question was confronted to the accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., qua the vehicle being driven by him, he had again reiterated the answer and further improved his version with additional claim that he also told the Investigating Officer that he got lift in the car and was heading towards "R" to see ailing friend who was admitted in hospital; and that Investigating Officer deliberately did not take any step against the said real culprit in spite of issuing summon against him---Said specific stance of the accused was to be considered with reference to Art. 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, "when any fact was especially within the knowledge of any person" the burden of proving that fact was upon him---Said aspect led to an irresistible conclusion that burden of proving that particular fact which was in the knowledge of accused was upon him, who was best man to discharge that onus---However no witness had been produced by the accused, therefore, his entire defence version had lost its significance in the case---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

AHMED ALI vs State S — 2023 YLR 1829 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR