Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1478 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Imran Munir vs State S

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: 2024 MLD 1478 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Imran Munir VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Single consolidated sample from all packets sent for forensics---Prosecution case was that 40-kilograms charas was recovered from the vehicle driven by the accused---Seizing Officer reiterated what he had incorporated in his murasila---Surprisingly, Seizing Officer did not utter a single word in his examination-in-chief for extracting samples and making parcels of the recovered 40 packets of baked cannabis---Seizing Officer also failed to mention about arrival of the Investigating Officer, regarding preparation of the parcels in question of the narcotic and the car allegedly driven by accused---Recovery witness testified in similar lines as deposed by Seizing Officer regarding recovery of 40 packets of narcotic substance weighing 40 kilograms---Recovery witness further added that 10 grams charas from each packet, total weighing 400 grams, were put in parcel No.1, whereas remaining 39660 grams charas was put in parcel No.2, which was secured through recovery memo---Deposition of said witness manifested that no separate samples were extracted for chemical analysis rather a consolidated sample i.e. parcel No.1 of 40 packets of charas was prepared, which was subsequently sent to the Chemical Examiner, whereof positive Forensic Science Laboratory Report was received---Seizing Officer should have secured separate sample from each packet for chemical analysis and if such protocol was not observed, then the consolidated sample drawn from each packet shall represent only one packet of narcotic substance---Since, no separate sample had been drawn and consolidated sample of 400 grams had been secured and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, henceforth, only one kilogram charas could be considered to have been recovered from the accused---Prosecution had failed to produce the car in question wherefrom the narcotic substance was recovered, which put a severe dent in the case of the prosecution, making the recovery of narcotic substance cloudy and doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove the indictment---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1478 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Imran Munir vs State S — 2024 MLD 1478 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD