SHAHADAT ALI vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 385 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SHAHADAT ALI VS State Ss. 9 & 32---Confiscation and release of vehicle in narcotic cases---Scope---Prosecution case was that 7200 grams opium in six packets was recovered from the vehicle driven by accused---Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, deals with the final confiscation or release of the vehicle to the owner, after the conclusion of the trial, if he proves that he had no knowledge about the offence, which allegedly had been committed in the vehicle---Not only that, an innocent owner of the vehicle was entitled to the return of the vehicle but the burden has been placed on the prosecution to establish that the owner had the knowledge of his vehicle being used in the crime---As far as the question of knowledge was concerned, undisputedly it was required to be proved by leading evidence and the Trial Court could form such opinion after having taken into consideration the facts of the case---In the present case, the prosecution alleged that the narcotics was concealed in the secret cavities of the car but Court while granting acquittal to the accused disbelieved the entire prosecution story---Admittedly the vehicle was not in the ownership of the accused and the same was just used by him---Admittedly the owner of the vehicle had not been challaned to Court to stand trial as co-accused---Moreover, it was nowhere alleged or proved on record that the owner of the vehicle had any direct or indirect connection with the commission of offence under trial---In such back drop the vehicle was not liable to be confiscated under Ss. 32 & 33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Even otherwise there was no other claimant of the car in question---Thus, the Trial Court had rightly observed that the recovered car be returned to its original owner---Appeal filed by Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) was dismissed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 385 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE SHAHADAT ALI VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Dispatch of sample for test or analysis---Safe custody and transmission of samples for forensics not established---Prosecution case was that 7200 grams opium in six packets was recovered from the vehicle driven by accused---Record showed that the reports submitted by Testing Laboratorywas legally laconic---Deposition of complainant reflected that he had not handed over the sample parcels to the Moharrar in the Police Station for keeping the same in safe custody rather retained the same with him till its transmission in the office of Testing Laboratory---In the testimony of Moharrar, he acknowledged the receiving of sample parcels along with the case property from the complainant and its entrustment to Constable for its transmission to the office of Testing Laboratory for analysis---Both the complainant and Moharrar alleged that they had sent the sample parcels to the office of Testing Laboratory but the reports of laboratory totally spoke otherwise that the samples were received in the said office "By Hand"---Reports did not bear name of any person, who submitted the sample parcels in the said office---Safe custody and as well as transmission of sample parcels from the place of occurrence to the Police Station and office of Testing Laboratory was missing, in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 385 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE SHAHADAT ALI VS State S. 9(c)--- Possession of narcotics--- Chain of safe custody of samples---Significance---Significantly, the chain of custody began with the recovery of the seized drug by the Police and included the separation of the representative sample(s) of the seized drug and their dispatch to the Narcotics Testing Laboratory---Chain of custody was pivotal and the prosecution must establish that the chain of custody was unbroken, unsuspicious, indubitable, safe and secure---Any break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control of possession of the sample would cast doubts on the safe custody and safe transmission of the samples and would impair and vitiate the conclusiveness and reliability of the report of the Government Analyst, thus, rendering it incapable of sustaining conviction. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 385 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE SHAHADAT ALI VS State Ss. 9 & 36---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 5 & 6---Possession of narcotics---Reports of Government analyst---Protocols used, non-indication of---Effect---Prosecution case was that 7200 grams opium in six packets was recovered from the vehicle driven by accused---Complete mechanism had been given in Rr. 5 & 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001; the Chemical Examiner was required to adopt complete procedure and then the report was to be submitted after referring necessary protocols and mentioning the tests applied and their results---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 opium or charas---Said agency had failed to provide the details that how much quantity he had tested and 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 Testing Laboratory would lose its sanctity and it could not be relied upon for the purposes of conviction---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

SHAHADAT ALI vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 385 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ