2021 PCrLJ 1624
Safe custody and transmission of parcel containing recovered narcotic---Scope---Accused impugned order of Trial Court whereby he was convicted and sentenced under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, inter alia, on ground that prosecution witnesses were not credible and Safe custody and transmission of alleged recovered narcotic was not proved---Validity---Accused could not impeach credibility of police complainants and such police witnesses were as good as any other witness unless proved otherwise and S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded application of S. 103, Cr.P.C.---Contention of police witnesses was that 78 grams of recovered narcotic was segregated for chemical analysis and the rest of 1472 grams recovered narcotic was secured separately however, prosecution witnesses could not prove as to who transmitted parcel containing said 1472 grams and no evidence was presented to show how such parcel was retrieved and brought to court to be exhibited as evidence ---Courier and moharrar were material witnesses to establish that case property was not tampered with while it was with them---Prosecution, in present case, only proved Safe custody and transmission of parcel containing sample of 78 grams ; and therefore accused could only be sentenced and convicted to extent of quantity of the sample parcel---High Court after converting conviction of accused from Ss. 9(c) to 9(a) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, reduced his sentence---Appeal was allowed. .
2021 MLD 1772
Safe custody and transmission of samples of the narcotic from police to Chemical Examiner not established---Effect---Prosecution case was that 212 maunds of charas in 425 plastic bags was recovered from the trailer of the accused persons---Investigating Officer stated that on 03-01-2014, he handed over the case property to Moharrar of police station---Prosecution also examined Head Constable/Moharrar, who stated that on 03-01-2014 Investigating Officer had handed over to him case property comprising of 425 sealed bags of charas and 425 sealed sample parcels thereof for keeping the same in Safe custody of malkhana and on 17-01-2014, he handed over the sealed sample parcels of charas to a Constable for their onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency, but according to the attested copy of report of the said agency, the parcels were not deposited therein on 17-01-2014, 18-01-2014 and 19-01-2014 rather the same were deposited on the fourth day i.e. 20-01-2014---Prosecution had absolutely no explanation to offer as to when the sample parcels were lying in the malkhana and were in Safe custody of Moharrar/HC in the police station, then why Constable kept the same in his own room that too for almost four days---Though Constable had tried to cover-up that material illegality during cross-examination but he had no answer of his failure to deposit the sample parcels within reasonable period---Firstly, there was no occasion to remove such a large number of sample parcels from the malkhana and secondly there was no justification for Constable to keep the same unsafe in another office---Even otherwise, it was only an oral assertion and it was not clear as to where the sample parcels were kept from 17-01-2014 to 20-01-2014---In the trial, it was essential for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that alleged contraband seized from the possession of the accused by Investigating Officer was safely transmitted to the police station and thereafter it was kept in Safe custody by Moharrar Malkhana from where the alleged sample parcels were transmitted to the Forensic Science Agency for chemical analysis but a complete chain of Safe custody was absolutely missing in the case---Samples so deposited in the office of Forensic Science Agency, therefore, could not be tagged with samples taken from the substance seized from the possession of the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
0 Comments