MUHAMMAD HASSAN S/O ABDUL RAZZAQ (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

\g,

\2-J

reP PIP "'.jft1$.:.d.Q.d..t.

t )6fi

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

(AT KARACHI)

Criminal Appeal # D- 12021

l. Muhammad Abbass s/o Ahmed Jan, Muslim Adult, resident of--- Presently confined in, Central Jail, Karachi. Appellant

=Versus=

The State Respondent

C rime # 956 of 2020.

U/S:6,9-C,14/15 of C.N.S. Atggi.

Police Station Sachal, Karachi.

.l .. :. l h,t' C AP PEAL UND ER SECTI oN 48. OF THII

C NTR L N S STANCE SA 1997

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 27-05-2021 passed by the I't Additional District & Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, in Session Case No.1977 of Z}2l,convicts the appellant for the offence punishable under section I4of GNSA 1997. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/= as fine or R.I for four months more in case ofdefauit, therefore, appellant above named prefer this appeal on the following facts and grounds.

Certified copy of Impugned Judgment dated 27-05-2021 is

\ar-t.ttcr aclp:-Eb{ \sz N' S{= C*s l."\ C/.--^'.d nf o,'k "^b p*+- ts a.((.r..rs,rl i(.3r-t-

iTJ TI-IE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI Presertt:

Mr. lustice Molnnunad l(arint T{Jratr Aglrn Mr. Jttsticc Ztrl.fiqar Ali Sntrgi

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.356 OF 2021

Appellant: Muhamrlad Hassan s/o. Abdu I Razzaq through Mr. Ahmed Ali, Advocate,

ltespondent: The State through Mr. Muharnmad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor Gerreral Sindh.

CRIMINAL AI'PEAL NO.337 OF 2021

Appellhnt: Vluhamrnad Abbas s/o. Ahmed Jan through Mr. Baber Hamid, Advocate.

Resironclent: The State through Mr, Muhatnmad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh.

I)ate of Flearing: 28.10.2022

l)ate of Announcernent: 02.17.2022

T UDCMEN'I-

lvloImnr trttti linrittt 1(t r A\r|fi, l- A ppellants Nlluhatltl;rtl I I;rssatr irrrtl N{uhammacl Alrbas u,ele h'iet1 in the Nlorlel Crir-ninal Tlial Ccuri/ Atitlitionrl Sessions luelte N,lalir, i(aIacl'ri in Sessions Ca:;e No.1977/2020 untlcL l:lll \,) !,-i).?{)1il u/s. 6r9-C ui CNS.-\cL l9');, r'r'rti-iur'€tl .rt I'S 5;relr.ll, l(ar',rtlri .rrr'l ,, iele jurlginent clated 27.0a.2011 tlt\,iv l\,,.tre convi.trtrl anr.1 senteucerl ulrrlcr :;L,cLion h-/9-C.ln.i sc.ti()11 1.1 of CNS Act, 1997 lol lilc iruprisotttttctri;tt.tci itlrlrost'tl lilr oi Iis.5,l.)l),000/ - i'rnrl iu casc oI clelaLrit in Pa,\'ll1cL1t ctl fi:lc tlri:r' sh;rll utl.1e ttl,"

\tz

!.1 . [oI l(]Llt: months t-t-toLt: However, the appellants wele grantecl benefit ol.

Si:c lior-r 382-B Cr.P,C.

l. 'l-he br.icf iircts of the prrosecution case al'c that on 11.10.2020 at 1300 hotrrs a |oiicc P.rItY at r.uain super. Highn a,v Roarl, 4-C tlus Stop, A(ea s;rchal, Karacl'Lt ht:.rclcri tr-r' SIP it"luhirmt-nac1 Akram oi PS Sachal' stoppc''1 Rtts bc;tt irlg Alrbas sotr Iiegistl.ation No.LES-(r300 rvhich was clriveu by :tccused lVltthatlrru;rc1 .l[AhtrreclJanarrclco-accused.MuhatrrtrrardllassansonofAbLlull{azzatlir,as lr.tssengel.ou the bus autl during search ol the Tool Box ilr the bus the Polir:tl secureLl 18 packets containing Chars in hrtai weighing 21 I(ilo antl 600 grarns

u,hich \1r.ts kept b1.. Ivluhammacl I lassan lvith tl'rerr krrowletlgc, itt pt'csuLttu rrl

rnashits, heuce thc instant FIR.

3.,,\iter usr-r:rl iuvestigatiorr the charge n'as lrarned against the acctrsctl L)cl:so s.rnrl tltcy werc sent-up to iacc the trial u,here they pleatletl nol guiltY Lo the charge

.1. Tl-re prosecution in order to P1'ove its case exatninecl 03 witncsses 'trltl '1he state.ments of accusetl \'t'rc r:xhibitotl r,arious elocuments aud other items.

,..1.ur.1".i ur.r!.lL.r Sr.ctior-., 312 Cr...p.C in rvhich they rlenied tlre allegations ler'.ricti oath uol calletl at-rr' I)\\/ ag;riust them. Neither of tire appellants gave evidcnce on in suprpolt of their deience case.

5.Aftellreat.ingtlrepartiesanc.lappreciatirlgtlreer,icletlc-eotrrecord,thelrial cotu'ictetl thc appellants atrcl sentencecl thenr as sct out earlier irl this corrLt their judgrnent; hence, the appeilants l-rave filed these appeals against conrrictions.

the trial corrlt

6.l-he facts of the case as n'eli as evidence proclucecl beiore the triltl ctrtL;'l tir.1 au clabcx':ite netltioll in the irnpugner'1 jutlgment passe''l bY alrc[,tlrer.efore,thes;rmemayllotber.eproclucctllrer.csoastoir.r,.oiddtrplicaticlrr .rrt, i u rtttcc.'ss.irr lupeLitir'rr,

7'I,,c;.rrtreclcor.rnselfortlreappell;rlltscL]ntendedtlrattlri:vrveLecttt-ttplt:Lt:l-r, that tht'rt:

innoceut antl hacl been firlsely impLicater-l iu thc case by the pollce; witnesses eltld as sttch \\,erc col'rtrarlictions in tht: eviclerlce oi the ptosecution from wherc thc thi:il evictence coulcl tlot bc safell' relied upon; that the bus narcotics r.r,eLe lecovcLetl \\'as not produced at trial; that safe custoclv autl saie

tLar-rs*issj.o, of the 1ar.c6tic hacl not bcen proven;

that the chcrnic.rl rc'pott rvhiclr

\s.r

the prosecutiou had lelied upor-r had uot been put to the appellants at the timt: n,hen they recorded there 342 CI.PC statements and as such the chemical report could not be used against the appellants in orcler to convict them and as such for anv or- all of the above reasons tire appellants should be acquitted oI the charge b), beiug extended the benefit of the doubt. In support of their contentions they placeel reliance on the cases of Haji Nawaz v The State (2020 SCMR 687) ancl I(amran Shah and others v The State and others (2019 SCMIf 1217).

S. Lealneel Aclditional Ploseculor Genelal Sinclh has fullv suppoltc'-l thc irnpugnerl juclgment antl has subr:rittetl that tl-re appeals at'e without t-ueriI atrtl shou irl be clismissecl.

9.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Adclitional Prosecutor General Sindh and have also gone through the entire evidence which has been read out by the learned counsel for the appellants and the impugned judgment with their able assistance.

10.In narctttic cases, one of the most crucial aspects is that the prosecr'ttiotr nrLlsL Lrr ovc s;rfe custodir of the narcotic fr orn the time of ils rccovery utltil ilr,.r ti,i,., ,'t l."n it is scut for chemic;rl exantinatiou lt thev faiI to do so thetl the t ''' is 'i possibiiitV that tl-re narcotic substance had been tarnpered r,r'ith beiore it r'r'ls Icceiverl at the chernical laboratoly iol its exatlination. In sr-rcl-r like cases u'ltt'rc unbLolicr] chain of custorly cannot be proved by the Prrosecution then tht' cheruical report is of no Varlue. It is notecl that this is the view taken b-v the Slrprcr.nc Coutt legardless of the amount of the Iecovely whethel small or hugr:

;rs Li-re pr-inciple lemaius the sarnc. L'L this case the appellar-rts were arrestetl bv th''r

polict on 11.10.2020 and tLrc recovel-v of uat'cotics ttas uaclc frour the lrirs itr rvirich One appellant rt,as allegeclly the rlr.ivet' ancl tl-re othcr appellallt r|as allceetlll,apassellgelr,r,lrer.elromalrugeat-troutrtofrrarcoticswasfectll,t'rctl irom a secret cavit,v in the bus. Those narcotics il-ritially t'emaiuell n'ith Ir\"V 1 \lr-rhar-rtmecl Akranr r.,,,ho accorcling to the PIOSecution eviclencc hancle.l tht'lrr r.)\,cr. to Lhe SIO plesumably P\,V 2 Aurir N'leDrou on the s"rt-nc cltly whcrc |he v

kept ir-r the jVlalkana. In this respect the pl'osecutiou rclit-'cl t-:rr ..r,c rr: allegetllv

entlv Nit.-17 hoB,eveL entrv No.47 cloes not supPolt the plosecution case irl [his regar:d. FLil'Lhcrt]'roLe, thc tlall<hatra in charge was Ilot cxam'inec1 by thc pr.oscclltiLrn tc) prove thr: safe custclc'ly of the r-rarcotic autl as such it is r-rtlclc'ar' r.r,herc tlte nalcotic \^ as kept befOrc it was ttrkeu for chetnical exatlit-ratiotl ou I2.10.2020 an,-1 thus bascd or-t the parrticulat facts aurl ciLcurnstances of this cilsLr

\zs'

i,.,-: litrtl lltat tht prcrsr-:cution lras r.rot lreeu a[:,lc to p-rl'ovt: sal'e custtltlV 0f tlrt' rrar.crrtic ir.or.rr the time n,hcn it was recove.retl flon the appellants ti.ll tlre tirrrc rvl.rcrt the sallte was sent for chemical examiuatiorr autl as such the chcurical report is tti.no rralue tO the prosecution in prt:viug the recoveretl ualCCrtic.

11.With regar.d to the importance o{ the prosecution proving safe crltody oI the llarcotic lrom the time of its recovely to the time it was sent for chemical analysis t.he sarne was stressed/ emphasized by the Supreme Court in the case oi Qaisar Khan V State (2021 SCMR 363) which held as under';

"3. We hnae lrcard the lenrned cor nsel for the petitioner as zocl'l as tlrc learned Adctitional Atlztocnte Genernl, KPK oncl lterusctl tlte nttailable record alongtttith tlrc impugned judgnrctfi toitlt their rtssistance and obsented that in this cnse tlrc prosecution has failed to cstablislr tlte snfe custody nnd snfe trmtstttissiott of satryLe puL:els to thtt conctnrcrl lnborntory.

'fhis court lmd lnid dottt itt tnany judgntents that the rcpresentatitte sanrples -of tfu tlleged ,t rg titrrti be lcept in sat'e u.Lstorly nnd undergo snfe trnnsnissiotr 1i'oi t)u stage of rccoaery till its subntissiott to tlrc oft'ice' of tlv 'Coternnrcnt- anilyst. Non establishing the saicl facts znould cost dotrbt and zuould inpair and aitiate tlrc conclusiaeness and reliability of the rcpott of the Goaenrment anahlst' TIrus rcndering it incaltable of sustaining conaiction'

4.ht tlu present case no police ot'fcial uas ptodued,before the Trial Cotu't to rcport fibotlt sat'e cttstotly of satnples if ent-tusted-to him t'or beittg kept it the Nlalltharc in safe custorly Eaen tlrc police offtcial rulnsa beltittuifuer (FC 4225) hns bcen ntentiortert hy the Goaern nrcnt nnnhlst itt lris report, was not proth'tced by tle prosecution to clepox .tegnttlittg the sat'e deposit of the snicl snntple pnrccls in t.l:a co-ncert:ad lnborakny Thc ricord repeals tlnt tlg rccolltry ins nllcgcdly nffectud ott 79'08 201'l zolrereas, according to tlu report of chcttticr.L etmmtttr, tlrc snruplc pntcals ruere receiued ili tlrc saii ot'fice ott 2b08 201-1' Nobody t'rom thc proseattiott sitle runs ptodrLcerl to clnim thrtt durhg tltis period thc snid 'snntplc parcels renaitteLl intnct in his posse ssion .or wtde.r lns conlml in tlrc'Mnikhma in snft crLstodtl Etten tlu: ptoseaiion is siletrt ts t'o tpfun: ranninerl tluse snrttple parceis t'rom 19.08 2011 to 26 08'2011' Itr nltsence oJ establishing the' saic custitly and nle trutanission, tlu- cleruent Ltf t'ntnleriua ca"nnot be crcltrlcd i.tt tltis cnsc Tlrc tlnin of ctrstuly t{ sr,,iplc 7,'nrc"Is l,egir.s f otn tll recl?)ery of tlrc nntcotics b.y thc poliu inclluding the sei*ration of represent'ntitte snnryles of .tlLe .recrtttered )ltffcotic:, their iispatclt to the Malklmna and furtlw dispa.tch to the testit'Lg laborntoty- T'lu said clnit of custodtl- and transnission uns piuotit as the eith'e cotlstrLlct of tlrc Act 1!9.7 Conttol of 'Nnrcotic Suhstnnce (Gooernment Analysts) Rr;le :':!-tlrc 2001 (Rttles 2007)' 1'est LLpon thc report of tlrc ffinlyst. lt is prosecution's bolt tlcd Llltty tlttlt stLch'chnin of custody lrrrrst D,: s,y',' n)ti scctnl: ltecntLsY .tlr .rcporl of tntdcr thc Act tttcl clwnricnl. cxaitLincr ciioittc,l criticnl inryortnuce .1997 ' tlrc cl'nin of ctLstorly enstu'e tlrc renclnng of correct tepn:xntntiue snntplcs to tlrc oflile of clrciticnl exantinet Any bteak in tl.re -chairr of custody i.e, thi'safi cttstody ot safe tra.nstttission of tlw teptesentatiae ,o.rrpler, inakes thi tepori of chemical -exaniner ,utorthless and on rma:eliable for .irrstifuing couaiction of the accused' Such.lapse the part oi protecutioi *ould cast doubt and usould pitiate the ,u,,itrriuiri'st and reliability of tlrc repott of chernical cxaniner' Relinttce cnn be tnntle tq:ton tha fiLrlgntnts raufurtd hy Lht tlu'ce mcntbcrs

t

\sL

bancltcs of tlis co rt i.e . Ikrunulhrh tt. the Stnte (2015 SCNII?.'1002), lltt: St e i;. lntratt lJtlihslr (2018 SC,\4R 2039), 4! 4ttlElltttj-p-,Jfu statc (2019 SCM!< 608), I(antan Sluh as. The State (20L9 SCMR 1217), Mst. Razia Sultana u. the State (2019 SCMR 1300), Eaizan Ali a. tltc State (2019 SCMR 1649), Zahir Shalt nlias Shat u, Stotrt thr. AG I(PK Q01.9 SCMR 2004), Haii Nawaz a. the State (2020 SCMR 687), Oaiser l(tan a. tllo SLLtte (202L SCMR s63), Mrt.

Sslcirn Ratnzatr u. the State (2021 SCMR 451), Ztrbair Khan t. tht Statc (2027 SCMR 492) ad Gulzar zt, the State (2027 SCMR i80) " I2. Evt:n othelu'ise the chernical lepcllt eveu if safe custocll' ancl siiic ttanstnissiot-L of the narcotic haci been l-rroven is of llo evitleutial'y valLlo:rs it rvas nL)L PLlt to tirc appellants iluring thc recording of thcir S.342 Cr,PC stiltelrr(rrrts .r1t!l i1s sLlch cannot L:c usetl to corrvict thcrl. Iu this lega;'t1 rcliattcc, is ;tlaccLl olt llrc cirsc ol Haji Nawaz (Supla) t,here it was held as uncler in nlarteriai prart at pala;

"..-......The prosecution had maintnined that snmples had been secm'ed lmd ft'om ench nnd ezsery pacltet of the recoaered substnnce ruhich samples subsequently been tested positizte by the Chenical Exnntincr ltttt rpc ttolc th.nt at tlt time of recording the appellant's statc rcnt u.ndcr Section 342, Cr.P.C. the report of tlrc Forensic Science Lnbomtory hnd ttot been ptrl trt hisn nt all, The lazu is settled by noa.t that if a piece of ettidence or n ciramrstance is not Pttt to an accused person at the time of recordirtg his statemcnt t ntler Section 342, Cr.P.C theu the sautt cannot be consiclered against him for the puryose of rccordin5l ltis conaictiorx.,......,,.."

I3. Thus fol the reasons tnentiouetl above we find that thc prosecutiou has r-LoL plovr,:cl its case Lrevoucl a r-casonirble tioubt aga.ir-rst the appcll:rrrts attr,l lretret' bY beit-rg extenclccl the benefit oi thc cloubt the appellants are irereby actlllittetl ol the char.ge. The appellants shall be rcleased forthr'vith unless tirey .I1'o walltc(l ir1 a r.r\i Othel' custodV case.

11, The appeals stand disposecl of in the above tertns.

J

d ).)tl

JUDG