Pakistan Case Law
2007 PLD Supreme Court 85

THE STATE vs AMJAD ALI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2007 PLD Supreme Court 85
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Judge(s)Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Chaudhry Ijaz
ResultAppeal allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This criminal appeal by the State challenges an order passed by the High Court directing the drawing and re-testing of fresh samples of a narcotic substance allegedly recovered from the respondent, despite earlier samples having already been examined and tested. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a court can order the re-examination and re-testing of a narcotic substance already tested without stating extraordinary and cogent reasons. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court was unsustainable as it was passed without disclosing any reasons and merely upon the oral assertion of the accused's counsel. The Court emphasized that unscrupulous litigants frequently manipulate substances deposited in the Malkhana to secure dishonest acquittals, and courts must be vigilant against such clandestine modus operandi. The key principle laid down is that once a substance has been officially tested, a court must not direct its re-examination unless extraordinary reasons exist and are explicitly recorded in the order.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a court can order the re-examination of a narcotic substance already tested without recording extraordinary reasons?
  • Does the mere assertion of an accused's counsel warrant the fresh sampling and re-testing of recovered narcotics?
  • How should courts address attempts by litigants to manipulate substances deposited in the Malkhana for re-testing?
narcotic substancere-testing of samplesMalkhanacriminal appealsubstitution of evidencesupreme court

' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, f.---Seventeen kilograms of Charas had been allegedly recovered from the respondent. According to the impugned order of the learned High Court, samples were taken from the said narcotic substance which were then sent for examination and the result of the said examination had since been received.

2, Despite this, the learned High Court ordered drawing of fresh samples from the parcels lying in the Malkhana for their examination afresh without any reason being disclosed for the same and only because the learned counsel for the accused had submitted that if the said narcotic substance was re-tested then it would disclose that the same did not contain Charas.

3. The State is before us questioning the said order. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the State-petitioner has been heard. The learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent has also been heard and we have also examined the record in the light of the submissions made before us.

4. Instances are not unknown and are in fact increasing by the day, where unscrupulous litigants manoeuver replacement of the substances and articles deposited in the Malkhana then make prayer for the reexamination of the substance and the result obviously is that the narcotic substance which had already been examined/tested as a narcotic substance was found to be something else. Such an immoral practice was gaining momentum as a result whereof the criminals were securing their acquittal through dishonest means. It was about time the learned Courts came alive to the said clandestine modus operandi adopted to screen offenders and made sure that once a substance had been tested then extraordinary reasons must exist and must be given before directing fresh examination of such a substance.

5. Since no such reasons had been disclosed by the learned High Court through the impugned order, therefore, the said order cannot be sustained. Consequently, this petition is converted into an appeal which is allowed as a result whereof the impugned order dated 24-1-2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No,396 of 2005 is set aside.. No orders as to costs.

Cited by 15 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.