2023 SCMR 781
Possessing and trafficking narcotics --- Non - production of recovered narcotics or vehicle in Trial Court - Effect --- Case property is always relevant for the decision of the case because if the narcotics are recovered from any accused , the same should have been shown in court , and then the report of the laboratory would be helpful to the prosecution --- Likewise , in narcotics cases , the conviction and sentence are based on the possession of the narcotics or on aiding , abetting or associating with the narcotics offences -- In such eventuality , it is incumbent upon the prosecution to produce the case property before the court to show that this is the narcotics / case property that was recovered from accused's possession --- However , if the narcotics are destroyed under section 516 - A , Cr.P.C , then , such destruction should be done after issuing notice to the accused , and the destruction should be done in the presence of the accused or his representative --- Magistrate is required to prepare samples of the narcotics substance that was ultimately destroyed so that a representative ( sample ) of the destruction process could be produced in the Court ; besides , the certificate so issued by the Magistrate would also be relevant and the same should be exhibited in the Court - When the material ( narcotics ) is neither produced nor exhibited , the presumption can be drawn that it is not in existence at all - When the best evidence , i.e. , the case property / narcotics , vehicle , etc. , is withheld by the prosecution and there is no plausible explanation for the non - production of the same in court , an adverse inference or assumption against the prosecution could be drawn under Article 129 ( g ) of the Qanun - e - Shahadat , 1984 , and it can easily be presumed that no such material / narcotics is in existence --- In the present case , the exhibits include an application to the SHO , the FIR , a recovery memo and a report of the chemical examiner which were produced during trial ; however , the narcotics substance and the vehicle , which formed the case property , were neither produced in court nor exhibited by the prosecution without plausible explanation --- Prosecution had , thus , failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Appeal was allowed and accused persons were acquitted of the charge .
0 Comments