FAZAL WAHAB Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, while reducing his sentence. The petitioner was convicted for the possession of 6000 grams of charas gardah. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, given that the Forensic Science Laboratory report initially omitted the name of the constable who transported the samples. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had sufficiently proven its case. The court observed that the testimony of the constable (CW.2), who confirmed he transmitted the parcels, cured the procedural defect in the report. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of malice against the prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the findings of guilt and the sentence imposed by the High Court, holding that no interference was warranted as the prosecution had met its burden of proof.
- Does the omission of a transporting official's name in a Forensic Science Laboratory report necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case regarding the chain of custody?
- Can oral testimony of a witness during trial cure a procedural omission in a forensic report regarding the transmission of sample parcels?
- Is the conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 sustainable when prosecution witnesses remain consistent on material aspects and no malice is proven?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J .---After a regular trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to fourteen years' R.I., with a direction to pay fine of Rs.200,000/-, in default whereof to undergo S.I. for two years. Benefit of section 382-B,. Code of Criminal Procedure was extended to him. The petitioner filed a criminal appeal before the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, which was disposed of with modification that sentence of the petitioner was reduced from fourteen years' R.I. to seven years' R.I. and the amount of fine was reduced from Rs. 200,000/- to Rs.100,000/-, in default whereof to undergo six months' S.I. Hence, the instant jail petition for leave to appeal.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Prosecution case against the petitioner as divulged from the contents of FIR, is that at the time of his arrest 6000 grams charas gardah was recovered from his possession. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the petitioner produced complainant Amir Zaman Khan, SHO (PW.2) and Ibn-e-Raza, ASI (PW.1). The latter is also a witness of recovery. Both these witnesses while appearing before the learned trial court remained consistent on all the material aspects of the case. To prove safe custody of case property in malkhana, the prosecution produced Muhammad Hussain, Muharrir (PW.4). Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that transmission of sample parcels to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) has not been established by the prosecution. In this regard, he pointed out that in the relevant column of report of FSL (Ex.PZ) only belt number of Constable (FC.No.352) who had taken the parcels to the FSL has been given but his name is not mentioned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State pointed out that Muhammad Yousaf, 352/FC has appeared as CW.2 and stated that he had transmitted the sample parcels to the office of FSL. In these circumstances, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance. Moreover, positive report of FSL (Ex.PZ) substantially establishes the case of prosecution against the petitioner. During trial, the defence was not able to bring on record anything which could suggest that petitioner has been implicated in this case due to malice on the part of prosecution witnesses. After evaluating the evidence available on record, we are of the view that findings of guilt rendered by the learned courts below against the petitioner do not suffer from any infirmity. Learned High Court has already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence of the petitioner. No interference is called for.
4. For the foregoing, the instant jail petition having no merit is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
MWA/F-3/SC Petition dismisse