The State v. Accused (name withheld) - CNS Act

Background

According to the FIR, a police patrol from PS Jamshed Quarter received spy information on 22.02.2020 that a person was selling charas near Lasbela Chowk, Nishtar Road, Karachi. The police said they arrested the accused there and recovered 1100 grams of charas from a plastic shopper, along with cash and a mobile phone. He was charged under Section 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution examined the complainant, the investigating officer and a police mashir. The accused denied the allegations in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

Points for determination

• Whether charas weighing 1100 grams was recovered from the accused.
• What offence, if any, the accused committed.

The Court's reasoning

Roznamcha entry. The departure entry produced was neither original nor signed, nor a certified true copy. The Court held that the complainant had not proved that he was on patrol at the relevant time, relying on 2002 P.Cr.L.J. 51.

Mashir's signatures. The mashir's signature taken on the evidence sheet during trial did not match his signature on the memo of arrest and recovery, which made his presence at the scene doubtful.

Safe custody. The investigating officer admitted he made no entry in Register No. 19 at the Malkhana, and the Malkhana in-charge was not examined. Safe custody and safe transmission of the case property were not established, and the chemical report lost its sanctity (2012 SCMR 577 relied on).

Delay and sample numbers. The property was sent to the chemical examiner after an unexplained delay of three days, and the sample number on the chemical report differed from the one in the forwarding letter, so it was doubtful whether the sample examined was the one recovered.

The Court noted that police evidence is as good as any other but must be closely scrutinised, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to its benefit as of right (1995 SCMR 1345).

Outcome

Point No. 1 was answered as doubtful. The accused was acquitted on benefit of doubt, his bail bond was cancelled and his surety discharged. The case property was ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.

Why it matters

Narcotics cases often turn on the paperwork: the roznamcha, the recovery memo, the Malkhana register and the chain of custody to the chemical examiner. This judgment shows how gaps in that record can create reasonable doubt.