Syed Qalb-e-Abbas vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1611 ISLAMABAD

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

Syed Qalb-e-Abbas VS State S. 409---Official Secrets Act (XIX of 1923), Ss. 3 & 4---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, communication with foreign agents to be evidence of commission of certain offences---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Digital Forensic Analysis Report---Integrity of data compromised---Onward transmission of data not proved---Accused was charged for communicating secret information to a foreign diplomat/agent, prejudicial to the safety and security of the State---Digital Forensic Analysis Report submitted by the Cybercrime Wing, prepared by the Forensic Expert, stated that he received three devices, one mobile phone and two USBs for forensic analysis and submitted a report---Forensic Expert conceded that his statement under S.161,Cr.P.C., was not reduced into writing---Saidwitness did not refer to a single instance from which it could be presumed, on the basis of the forensic analysis, that any data had been transferred to any recipient or to whom it was allegedly sent---Said witness further stated that such determination was not within the scope of forensic analysis and also admitted that he did not mention the cell number (or SIM number) in the digital analysis report, a key factor required to establish the connection between the appellant and the recovered mobile phone---Said witness also conceded that the documents retrieved were not verified from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs---In view of these admissions by the forensic expert, the second prosecution witness, deposed that he received two USB devices on 16.02.2021 and one mobile phone on 18.02.2021, allegedly recovered from the accused, for the purposes of extracting secret documents from these devices---However, the timeline indicated that those recovered devices were neither immediately forwarded to the forensic expert nor were they sealed at the time of recovery---Such omissions led to the irresistible conclusion that the digital evidence/data referred to by the Forensic Expert could not be treated as primary evidence, particularly when its integrity was demonstrably compromised and its transmission/communication to someone (foreign agent in this case) was also not proved through the forensic report---Deposition given by the forensic witnesses during cross-examination did not fulfill the essential principles of admissibility of digital evidence enshrined in the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, including the origin, copying, originality, communication, transmission etc. thereby collapsing the entire edifice of the prosecution's case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Syed Qalb-e-Abbas vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1611 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ