Shafqat Iqbal alias Bilalu vs State S — 2026 YLR 1058 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.

Shafqat Iqbal alias Bilalu VS State S.9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of recovered substance and samples of case property not proved---Examination of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C---Scope---Prosecution case was that 1450-grams charas was recovered from the possession of accused---Record showed that the Trial Court, while examining the appellate/accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C did not put to him that who at the place of recovery handed over parcels of case property comprising of parcel of sample as well as parcel of remaining case property to whom for taking the same to the police station who brought the parcel of sample as well as parcel of remaining case property from the place of recovery to the police station and to whom same were handed over at the police station for safe custody---Similarly, it had also not been put to the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. that who kept the parcel of sample as well as parcel of remaining case property in safe custody at police station and then, who handed over parcel of sample to whom for transmitting the same to the Forensic Science Agency, for the purpose of chemical analysis; therefore, chain of "safe custody" of the "parcel of remaining case property" as well as of the parcel of the sample" had not been put to the appellant under S.342, Cr.P.C. hence same could not be used against him---In such circumstances, when chain of safe custody of parcel of sample as well as parcel of remaining case property had not been put to the appellant/accused during his examination under S.342, Cr.P.C., then the same could not be used against him and when it could not be used against the appellant/accused then it i.e. said safe custody would be deemed as not proved against him---Unbroken chain of safe custody of "allegedly recovered case property and parcel of sample" was to be proved otherwise, conviction was not possible and it was rightly so because recovery of narcotic was not a mere corroboratory piece of evidence rather it constituted the offence itself and entailed punishment---Since safe custody of the parcel of sample taken out of the recovered substance had not been proved in this case therefore report of Forensic Science Agency was inconclusive and could not be made basis for conviction---If safe custody of allegedly recovered substance or parcel of sample/case property had not been proved, then there was no need to discuss other merits of the case and it straightaway led to the acquittal of the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Shafqat Iqbal alias Bilalu vs State S — 2026 YLR 1058 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR