Faheemullah vs The State
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the Court of Session and the High Court of Sindh, which convicted the petitioner under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 5080 grams of cannabis. The petitioner contended that the prosecution case was fabricated, alleging that the police conducted an unauthorized raid on his house, stole valuables, and subsequently planted the narcotics to justify the incident. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt despite the petitioner's allegations of police misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was consistent, supported by contemporaneous records such as the daily diary entry, site plan, and chemical examiner's report. Finding no evidence to support the petitioner's claims of a planted case or police abuse, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.
- Does the existence of a consistent prosecution account, supported by contemporaneous records and a positive chemical examiner report, satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in narcotics cases?
- Can a conviction be overturned based on allegations of police misconduct when there is no material evidence on the record to support such claims?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Surprised with 5080 grams of cannabi s by a contingent of Police Station Pirabad, the petitioner was sent to Court of Session (West) Karachi; upon indictment, he claimed trial that resulted into his conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; he was sentenced to 7-years 6-months with a direction to pay fine vide judgment dated 30.8.2019, upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh vide impugned judgment dated 7.7.2020, vires whereof, are being assail ed on the grounds that the High Court as well as the Court of Session, concurrently ran into error by placing implicit reliance on the prosecution's evidence, inherently flawed and tainted, maliciously produced to secure an unjustified conviction; the bottom line is that a false case was cooked up, through abuse of process of law, to hush up an unauthorized raid on petitioner's house, during the course whereof, cash, gold ornaments as well as other valuables were taken away by a police mobile, an incident that according to the learned counsel was witnessed by the neighbourhood. The learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment being based upon confidence inspiring evidence.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Prosecution case is consistent and straightforward. The petitioner was apprehended during a routine patrol and his arrest along with contraband were incorporated in the daily diary , entry whereof, is placed on record as Exh.3/A; site plan and inspection note also coincide with the details, elaborated in the crime report. These are also consistent with the investigative details. There is nothing on the record that could even obliquely support the plea belatedly taken by the petitioner and, thus, preponderance of prosecution evidence comprising safe custody of contraband, transmission of sample, to the office of chemical examiner with a positive report supported by a unison account furnished by the official witnesses remained unscathed during an inconsequently cross-examination.
Learned trial Court as well as the High Court concurrently found the prosecution evidence sufficient to successfully constitute "proof beyond doubt" ; we on our own independent analysis, in the absence of any material to support the hypothesis canvassed at the bar, have not been able to persuade ourselves to take a different view. Impugned judgment being well within remit of law and inconsonance with the principle of safe administration of criminal justice calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined.
Cited by 2 cases
- Shah Nawaz Khan vs State & Another 2022 PHC 582
- Shah Nawaz Khan vs The State and another 2023 PCRLJ 259