Citation Name: 2024 PLD 522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. SAIMA NOREEN 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 PLD 522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. SAIMA NOREEN VS State Ss. 428 & 561-a---Control of Narcotic Substances act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken---Scope---Petition was filed during the trial for summoning representatives of Telecom Company for verification of Call Data Records and also exhibiting the same but the same was dismissed---Validity---any accused or witness could claim or admit possession and use of any SIM "Subscriber Identity Module' by him or anybody else at the time of occurrence or any other relevant time yet such mere claim or admission was not sufficient for relying on CDR "Call Data Record" of said SIM because CDR only showed use of SIM in territorial/ geographical jurisdiction of "Cell Phone Tower" installed by Telecom Operator and did not disclose that who was actually/exactly carrying and using said SIM---However, "Voice Record Transcript" or "End to End audio Recording" could reflect the detail/identification of the user---Therefore, without "Voice Recording Transcript", mere "Call Data Record" (CDR) alone of the SIM was inconclusive piece of evidence regarding identity of its user/carrier---admission of the witness regarding use of any SIM must be corroborated not only by its CDR but also by "end to end" audio recording of "voice call" confirmed by due forensic analysis---Furthermore, CDR and voice record transcript as well as its forensic analysis report must be proved in accordance with law for reliance---In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, at appellate stage, "Call Data Record" (CDR) was not conclusive piece of evidence for the purpose of determining and establishing the identity and presence of any witness or person at some exact locale/position/place---application filed by applicant for summoning representative of a telecom company for verification of photocopy of CDRs was dismissed by the trial Court and said order was not challenged and same attained finality---Only such piece of evidence could be brought on record through additional evidence at appellate stage which had been considered as necessary for decision of the case and had concrete evidentiary worth beyond shadow of doubt, however, in the instant appeal, the Call Data Record (CDR) did not fulfill said condition/criteria---During trial, applicant did not ask/move for production and bringing any voice record transcript/"end to end audio recording" of any phone call as well as forensic analysis report of the same, on record as evidence---If any piece of evidence was in the knowledge/notice of party but was neither produced nor asked to be produced during trial then same could not be allowed to come on record under S. 428, Cr.P.C., at appellate stage---application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. SAIMA NOREEN vs State Ss — 2024 PLD 522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD