Muhammad Raziq vs State S — 2025 YLR 26 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Muhammad Raziq VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Safe custody of the recovered contraband---Prosecution, duty of---Scope---Prosecution is obliged to establish that the chain of custody of the case property as well as the sample separated therefrom remains unbroken, unsuspicious, indubitable, safe and secure---Any break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control of possession of the sample, would cast doubts on the safe custody and safe transmission of the sample and would impair and vitiate the reliability of the Report of the Government Analyst. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 26 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Muhammad Raziq VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of the recovered contraband not proved---Accused were charged for having possession of 3360 grams charas---Complainant stated in his examination in chief that he had shown the recovered contraband to the Investigation Officer on the spot---Later on complainant handed over the case property and the accused to Muharrir of the police station at about 07:30 pm, however the Investigation Officer contrary to the statement of the complainant stated in his cross-examination that the case property was handed over to the Muharrir of the police station by him---It was an admitted fact that the prosecution had not produced register No. 19 of malkhana, of Police Station concerned, to prove that the allegedly recovered contraband charas was deposited in the Malkhana on the same day by the complainant---Even complainant had not produced abstract of register No.19 whereupon he got his signature for receiving the case property to substantiate his plea---Under said circumstance it could safely be held that there was no iota of evidence to establish that the alleged recovered contraband was under safe custody---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 26 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Muhammad Raziq VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of the recovered contraband not proved---Accused were charged for having possession of 3360 grams charas---Complainant stated in his examination in chief that he had shown the recovered contraband to the Investigation Officer on the spot---Later on complainant handed over the case property and the accused to Muharrir of the police station at about 07:30 pm, however the Investigation Officer contrary to the statement of the complainant stated in his cross-examination that the case property was handed over to the Muharrir of the police station by him---It was an admitted fact that the prosecution had not produced register No. 19 of malkhana, of Police Station concerned, to prove that the allegedly recovered contraband charas was deposited in the Malkhana on the same day by the complainant---Even complainant had not produced abstract of register No.19 whereupon he got his signature for receiving the case property to substantiate his plea---Under said circumstance it could safely be held that there was no iota of evidence to establish that the alleged recovered contraband was under safe custody---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. S. 9(c)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material witnesses---Effect---Accused were charged for having of possession 3360 grams charas---Record reflected that important witnesses of the prosecution i.e.carrier of the sample of the contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory and Moharrir of the police station were not examined by the prosecution to prove that the case property was in safe custody till its transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory, hence, non-production of the said material witnesses casted serious doubt on the prosecution case---Withholding of such important evidence in the peculiar circumstances of the case led to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution keeping in view Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Prosecution had failed to explain that why the best evidence available with the prosecution in shape of statements of said witnesses had been withheld---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 26 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Muhammad Raziq VS State Ss. 9(c) & 36(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 5 & 6---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Report of Government Analyst---Protocols used, non-indication of---Effect---Prosecution case was that 3360 grams charas was recovered from the possession of accused persons---Prosecution had not been able to establish that after the alleged recovery the substance so recovered was either kept in safe custody or that the sample taken from the recovered substance had safely been transmitted to the office of laboratory without being tampered with or replaced while in transit---Moreover, the Forensic Science Laboratory Report relied upon by the prosecution also did not contain the full details of protocols of the test applied, which being unreliable could not be made a basis to sustain conviction and sentence of the accused persons---"Protocol" means an explicit, detailed plan of an experiment, procedure or test or a precise step-by-step description of a test, including the listing of all necessary reagents and all criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the test data---Rule 6 required that full protocols of the test applied be part of the Report of the Government Analyst---Every test has its protocols, which are internationally recognized and a test without the observance of its protocols has no sanctity---"Full Protocols" include description of each and every step employed by the Government Analyst through the course of conducting a test---Hence, the Report under R.6 must specify every test applied for the determination of the seized substances with the full protocols adopted to conduct such tests and non-compliance of R.6 could frustrate the purpose and object of the Act, i.e., control of production, processing and trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as conviction could not be sustained on a Report that was inconclusive or unreliable---Evidentiary assumption attached to a Report of the Government Analyst under S.36(2) of the Act underlines the statutory significance of the Report, therefore details of the test and analysis in the shape of the protocols applied for the test become fundamental and go to the root of the statutory scheme---Rule 6 is therefore, in the public interest and safeguards the rights of the parties---Any Report (Form-Il) failing to-give details of full protocols of the test applied would be inconclusive, unreliable, suspicious and untrustworthy and would not meet the evidentiary assumption attached to a Report of the Government Analyst under S.36(2)---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 26 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Muhammad Raziq VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---For extending the benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts---Single circumstance, creating reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of accused, makes him entitled to its benefit, not as a matter of grace or concession, but as a matter of right.

Muhammad Raziq vs State S — 2025 YLR 26 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR