Muhammad Imran vs State S — 2025 YLR 888 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 Imran VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of recovered substance and its onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency not proved---Prosecution case was that 19-kilograms heroine was recovered from the possession of accused---According to the case of prosecution, 19-sample parcels were separately prepared and the main chunk of remaining heroin was packed in altogether a different parcel---All the parcels along with articles recovered from the personal search of appellant were handed over to Investigating Officer, upon his arrival at the spot---During trial, complainant candidly conceded that in his S.161 Cr.P.C. statement, he did not mention the handing over of 19-sample parcels of case property to Investigating Officer after his arrival at the place of recovery---More or less similar situation cropped up from the perusal of the testimony of Head Constable who on the eventful day was performing duty as Moharrar/Station Clerk---Even during his cross-examination it emerged that in S.161, Cr.P.C. statement said Moharrar simply stated to have received only one sealed parcel of the case property and mentioned nothing about the receipt of 19-sample parcels---Inexorably, the said facts were sufficient to expose the fragility of the prosecution case regarding the most important point of safe custody of sample parcels---Adverse impact of the such omission upon the case of prosecution could be evaluated from the fact that on the same nineteen sample parcels the Forensic Science Agency through its report opined that the recovered substance was heroin---Failure of prosecution to prove safe custody of recovered substance in cases arising out of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is always considered an incurable defect, sufficient to ward off punishment---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Imran vs State S — 2025 YLR 888 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR