Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1660 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Muhammad Anees 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: 2024 PCrLJ 1660 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Muhammad Anees VS State Ss. 9(c), 20 & 21---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Non-obtaining of search warrant---Prosecution case was that 800 grams Ice and 450 grams charas were recovered from the possession of the accused persons---Venue of occurrence was a dwelling house of the accused persons and their families---Station House Officer had prior information, which he considered credible thus, when he was going to search a residential house, he was required to have obtained a search warrant from the Judge, Special Court, as required under S.20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, because by then, he had ample opportunity to obtain the search warrant---Section 20 of the Act is directory in nature and in cases requiring quick action so that the narcotics are not removed or the culprits do not escape, obtaining of search warrant will not be necessary, but keeping in view the language of the provision of S.21, the Investigating Officer making the seizure must form a definite opinion that the obtaining of search warrant will consume such a time which will afford an opportunity to the accused to conceal or destroy the evidence/the contraband or otherwise will enable him to escape---Again subsection (2) of the S.20 has placed a legal burden on Investigating Officer to record reasons and grounds for making such an opinion and to send a copy to his superior Officer---Law-makers on the one hand have provided a facility/opportunity to the agency dealing with crimes of narcotics to search any building, vessel, vehicle, or enclosure without a search warrant, which is a clear departure from the settled principle of law but at the same time, have provided a check and balance system by enacting S.21 of the Act so that the traditional chicanery and foul play committed by such agencies are brought under control by check and balance system, and in that way, the officer conducting a raid on the residential building has no free hand to act on his whims and choice---Whenever Investigating Officer departs from the established procedure provided by the ordinary law, he is essentially required to provide reasons and grounds for such action in writing either in the FIR itself or in the case diary---In the instant case, there was a clear omission on the part of Investigating Officer in such regard for which no plausible explanation had come forth on record---In the case of a residential house, unless a serious emergency is shown and recorded by the Raiding Officer in his notes/case diaries as required by the law, he will not be acting within the parameters and safeguards provided by the provision of S.21 of the said Act; therefore, in the present case, a meager quantity of narcotics was recovered from a residential house without obtaining a search warrant from the Court, which, in the circumstances of the case, could have been conveniently obtained---Irregularity committed was of a nature to create very grave doubts about the honesty and credibility of the entire investigation---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1660 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Muhammad Anees vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1660 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ