PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1021 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case SADDAM HUSSAIN vs State R — 2024 YLR 1021 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 YLR 1021 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
YLR
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1021 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case SADDAM HUSSAIN vs State R
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 9; Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1021 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case SADDAM HUSSAIN VS State R. 4(2)--- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(b)---Possession of narcotic substance (150 grams of charas), allegation of---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in registration of FIR---Safe custody and transmission of narcotic substance not established---Record revealed that the FIR was lodged after the unexplained delay of three (03) hours despite the fact that Police Station was situated at only 03-KM from the place of alleged occurrence---Said delay signaled towards consultation, connection, endorsement and procurement on the part of the prosecution in such regard---According to duly exhibited Report of the Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory (FTNL), the sample of the alleged recovered (baked charas) parcel was received through a Constable with the delay of about one month and three days, which delay had not been explained by the Prosecution/Investigating Officer---As per R. 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, said exercise was required to be completed within 72 hours of the recovery---Thus, explanation of delay was vital for the prosecution---Prosecution also failed to examine the Constable who took the sample to the Chemical Examiner, so that he could have been cross-examined on the point that in whose custody the sealed parcel of Charas remained for about one month and three days, which made the case of the prosecution doubtful and also created doubts about the link of the chain of custody---Benefit of doubt must go to the accused---Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English