ASIF ALI vs State S — 2024 SCMR 1408 SUPREME-COURT

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

ASIF ALI VS State S. 9---Possession of narcotic---Safe custody and transmission of samples---Significance---In the cases under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish each and every step from the stage of recovery, making of sample parcels, safe custody of sample parcels and safe transmission of the sample parcels to the concerned laboratory---This chain has to be established by the prosecution and if any link is missing, the benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused---Prosecution is under a bounded responsibility to drive home the charge against an accused by proving each limb of its case that essentially includes production of the witness tasked with the responsibility of transmitting the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner and failure to do the same can cast away the entire prosecution case. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1408 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ASIF ALI VS State S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001, R. 4(2)---Police Rules, 1934, R. 22.70---Possession and transportation of charas---Reappraisal of evidence---Safe custody and transmission of the samples to the Forensic Laboratory not established---In the instant case, statements of a Head Constable and Investigating Officer revealed that the seven sample parcels of the charas allegedly recovered on 27.05.2021 were handed over to a Sub-Inspector for transmission to office of the lab on 31.05.2021 i.e. much beyond the seventy two hours of the seizure in violation of Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 ('Rules of 2001') for which no plausible explanation had been offered by the prosecution---According to statement of the Head Constable, he handed over the seven sample parcels to the Sub-Inspector for onward transmission to office of the Lab on 31.05.2021---In order to prove safe transmission of the sample parcels to office of the Lab, the prosecution had not produced said Sub-Inspector before the Trial Court for recording his statement and in this regard no explanation had been offered by the prosecution---During his cross-examination, Head Constable was confronted by the defence counsel with Form 22.70 of Register No.XIX maintained as per Rule 22.70 of the Police Rules, 1934 wherein admittedly no date, month and year had been mentioned in the relevant column No.3 pertaining to the case property/sample parcels of the instant case and in this regard as well no explanation had been offered by the Head Constable or by the Investigating Officer---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners by the Trial Court and maintained by the Appellate Court was result of misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence available on record---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court respectively were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge.

ASIF ALI vs State S — 2024 SCMR 1408 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR