AMEENULLAH vs State — 2026 SCMR 870 SUPREME-COURT

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

AMEENULLAH VS State. S.9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.540---Possession of narcotic substances---Re-appraisal of evidence---Summoning of witnesses given up by the prosecution---Powers of Trial Court---Scope. Prosecution case was that 314-kilograms narcotic substance was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by appellant, while the other appellant was travelling on the passenger seat. Prosecution had produced only two witnesses who were associated with the recovery. For reasons best known to the prosecution the other crucial witnesses were given up and the Trial Court had also approved that request. It was difficult to imagine that the prosecution was not competent to appreciate that by doing so they would fail in discharging their duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It was not expected that the Trial Court would allow the request and prevent itself from reaching a just decision. Court was empowered under Section 540 of the Cr.P.C. to decline the prosecution's request to give up the material witnesses or to summon them even if not cited in the calendar of witnesses. Said fact would not have amounted to filling the lacunas of the prosecution's case but to exercise its powers vested under Section 540 of the Cr.P.C to enable itself to reach a just decision. Moreover, it would not come within the ambit of the expression 'filling the lacunas' because the Trial Court would not be facilitating the prosecution to remedy an inherent weakness in its case but would rather be correcting an inadvertent or reckless omission on the part of the prosecution during the trial. Prosecution in this case, through its own conduct, had failed in its obligation to prove its case while the Trial Court, by disregarding its mandatory duty under Section 540 of the Cr.P.C, had facilitated the prosecution. Unbroken chain of safe custody and transmission was not proved and, therefore, the positive report of the Chemical Examiner had lost its evidentiary value and thus could not be relied upon to convict the appellants. Benefit of doubt was extended as of right to the appellants, and consequently, they were acquitted from the charge framed against them by the Trial Court. Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

AMEENULLAH vs State — 2026 SCMR 870 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR