Inayatullah Pathan vs State S — 2024 YLR 2376 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Inayatullah Pathan VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody and safe transmission of charas to the Chemical Examiner proved---Prosecution case was that 40-kilograms charas was recovered from the vehicle driven by the accused---Prosecution examined Police Constable to prove the safe transmission of recovered charas to the office of the Chemical Examiner---Said witness deposed that on 05.04.2021 IO handed over the case property viz. charas along with road certificate to him for depositing the same with the office of Chemical Laboratory for test and report---Same was deposited by him and returned to Police Station and handed over Road Certificate to the Investigating Officer---Statement of said witness was recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., by the Investigating Officer---Said witness had produced road certificate, departure entry and arrival entry---In the cross-examination of witnesses, no question had been put by the defence that there was tampering with the case property at Police Station or during its transmission to the Chemical Laboratory---Further, the prosecution examined Police Constable through whom the case property was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner and the Examiner confirmed that the property was received in sealed condition---In cross-examination Police Constable admitted that the case property viz charas was in sealed condition---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt against accused beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt---Appeal being devoid of merits was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2376 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Inayatullah Pathan VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Police Officials as witnesses---Prosecution case was that 40-kilograms charas was recovered from the vehicle driven by the accused---Police Officials are competent like other witnesses and their evidence cannot be brushed aside merely on the pretext that they are Police Officials---In this case, Police Officials had furnished straightforward and confidence-inspiring evidence and nothing had come on record to show that they had deposed against the accused maliciously or out of any animus and it could not be believed that the Police Officials would plant or foist such a huge quantity (40-kilograms) of narcotic substance against the present accused through their own resources---Statement of official witness could not be discarded merely for the reason that they were Police Officials---Competence of prosecution witnesses being Police Officials was rightly believed by Trial Court---Moreover, a procedural formality cannot be insisted at the cost of completion of an offence---If an accused is otherwise found connected then mere procedural omission and even allegation of improper conduct of investigation will not help the accused---Even otherwise, mere status of a person as an official will not prejudice the competence of such witness until and unless he is proved to be interested, who has a motive to falsely implicate an accused or has the previous enmity with the person involved---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt against accused beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt---Appeal being devoid of merits was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2376 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Inayatullah Pathan VS State Conviction---Technicalities---Scope---When the prosecution can prove its case on its salient features then unnecessary technicalities should not be allowed to hamper the very purpose of the law on the subject. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2376 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Inayatullah Pathan VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of narcotic substance proved---Prosecution case was that 40-kilograms charas was recovered from the vehicle driven by the accused---Complainant narrated the whole case of the prosecution as mentioned in the FIR---Complainant produced arrival and departure entries which showed the movement of the Police Officials---Complainant produced the case property viz. car and running certificate of recovered car---Complainant produced all certain relevant documents pertaining to the case, as such, the accused having prior knowledge had been found responsible for transporting huge quantity of charas in a sack carried by him through a car---To support the version of the complainant the prosecution examined the mashir of recovery and arrest---Said witness had almost repeated the same story and supported the version of the complainant---Said witness had denied the suggestion that due to non-payment of a bribe he falsely implicated the accused in the case---Lastly, the prosecution examined the Investigating Officer of the case, who had supported the prosecution version---Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Said witness had produced Chemical Examiner Report which was in positive and he had also produced other relevant documents---In the present case, no case of vexatious presentation was proved as the present appellant/ accused was arrested with the recovery of a sack carried by him containing 40-kilograms of Charas---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt against accused beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt---Appeal being devoid of merits was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2376 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Inayatullah Pathan VS State Ss. 9(c) & 21---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.54---Police Rules, 1934, R.26.1---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of narcotic substance not made by Gazetted Officer---Inconsequential---Power of police to arrest without a warrant---Prosecution case was that 40-kilograms charas was recovered from the vehicle driven by the accused---No doubt, the law required that an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector could arrest, enter into a building, place premises or conveyance but there was also no binding effect prescribed in the law that an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector could not arrest drug peddlers transporting narcotic substances---Contention of defence to the effect that an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector could attest the recovery proceedings was unconvincing---In the present case, the complainant being ASI in police while on patrolling along with other Police Officials received spy information at about 02.30 pm about a car containing charas---Police Officials started their checking at about 03.00 pm and intercepted the car and recovered huge quantity (40 K.Gs) of Charas from the car driven by the accused---Entire episode was completed within thirty minutes---Preamble of Control of Narcotic Substance Act, 1997, as a special law was enacted mainly to curb the menace of narcotics in the country---Requirement to obtain a search warrant can be dispensed with in a case where a quick action is required to be taken and it would be difficult to obtain a search warrant or call the Sub-Inspector where due to paucity of time there is apprehension of narcotics removal or culprits having the chance to escape from the place of incident---Under the provision of first clause of S.54, Cr.P.C, the Police Officer can arrest a person in four conditions, (i) the accused is involved in cognizable offence, (ii) against the accused a reasonable complaint has been made for the said offence, (iii) a credible information is received by the Police Officer that he is involved in a cognizable offence, and (iv) reasonable suspicion exists that the said person is involved in the cognizable offence---Object of S.54, Cr.P.C. is to give the widest powers to the Police Officers to arrest the persons who are involved in cognizable cases and only limitation placed upon their power is the necessary requirement of reasonability and credibility to prevent the misuse of powers by the Police Officers---Rule 26.1 the Police Rules, 1934, (General Power of Arrest) empowers the Police Officials to arrest without warrant any person who has been involved in any cognizable offence---Even the provision of Ss.20 to 22 of the C.N.S. Act being directory in nature, non-compliance thereof will not be a ground for holding the trial/conviction bad in the eyes of law---On such ground, the conviction of the appellant could not be set aside---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt against accused beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt---Appeal being devoid of merits was dismissed accordingly.

Inayatullah Pathan vs State S — 2024 YLR 2376 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR