Muhammad Shahid Mehmood vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 922 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Muhammad Shahid Mehmood VS State S.342---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Defects and errors made by the Court---Examination of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C---Scope---Prosecution case was that 12000-grams charas in twelve packets was recovered from the secret compartment of a car driven by the accused---Record showed that the Trial Court, while examining the appellate/accused under S.342, Cr.P.C, posed the question that the twelve packets containing "Charas", each packet weighing 1000 grams, were recovered from the personal search of the appellant whereas according to the prosecution witnesses, the twelve packets containing "Charas", each packet weighing 1000 grams, were recovered from the secret cavities of the car driven by the appellant---Examination of the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. must relate to the evidence and the circumstances which were brought against him by the prosecution during the trial---It was not an inane formality but had to be carried out in the interest of justice and fair play---It was mandate of the law that every incriminating evidence or circumstance that was sought to be used against an accused must be put to him under S.342, Cr.P.C for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain the same---Essentially, the attention of an accused should be drawn to all the pieces of evidence one by one, avoiding the form of cross-examination, in order to afford him an opportunity of giving an explanation, consistent with his innocence---If such an omission occurred it did not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and prejudice occasioned by such defect must be established by the accused---Merely because of defective questioning under S.342, Cr.P.C, it could not be inferred that any prejudice had been caused to the accused, even assuming that some incriminating circumstances in the prosecution case had been left out---When prejudice to the accused was alleged, it had to be shown that the accused had suffered some disability or detriment in relation to the safeguard given to him under S.342, Cr.P.C---Such prejudice should also demonstrate that it had occasioned a failure of justice---Burden was upon the accused to prove that prejudice had been caused to him and such prejudice was implicit---Appellate Court had to examine all the incriminating material produced by the prosecution and see what piece of evidence or circumstance had not been put to the accused and its impact on the fate of the case---Similarly, Court would determine whether the questions put to accused were in accordance with law and he was not misled by any of them---If Court comes to the conclusion that non-compliance with the provisions of S.342, Cr.P.C. had prejudiced the accused it might remit the matter to the Trial Court for retrial from the point where the irregularity occurred, that was, from the stage of questioning the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court to continue the trial from the stage where the irregularity occurred i.e. from the stage of examining the appellant under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Muhammad Shahid Mehmood vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 922 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ