Pakistan Case Law
1995 P Cr. L J 142

ARSHAD ALI and 2 others vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1995 P Cr. L J 142
CourtFederal Shariat Court
Case No.Criminal Appeal No,135/I of 1994
Date1994-10-26
Judge(s)Nazir Ahmad Bhatti
ResultAppeal accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of three appellants under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following an alleged recovery of narcotics from a vehicle. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the search proceedings and the sufficiency of evidence regarding possession. The Federal Shariat Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce the vehicle as case property, which undermined the prosecution's narrative and supported the defence's claim that the police raided the appellants' residence rather than a public location. Crucially, the Court found that the complainant failed to associate two respectable persons from the locality during the search, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. This omission rendered the search proceedings invalid. Furthermore, the Court noted that one appellant was not present at the scene, precluding a finding of possession. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting all appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that non-compliance with mandatory search procedures vitiates the recovery process.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the failure to associate two respectable persons from the locality during a search violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to produce the vehicle allegedly used for transporting narcotics as case property during a trial?
  • Can a conviction for possession of narcotics be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the accused was present at the scene of the recovery?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
  • Section 30, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
narcotics recoverysearch proceedingsmandatory provisionspossessioncriminal appealacquittalprohibition order

' Abdul Razzaq, Sub-Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Hazro had laid a picket on Shadi Khan Chowk on the night of 31-8-1990. At about 4-00 a.m. He received information that Arshad Ali, Asad All and Amjad Ali residents of Formulli, appellants herein, were about to transport narcotics in their Car No,Sialkot 9721 standing in front of their house. The S.H.O. Raided the place of occurrence. Appellant Arshad Ali was occupying the seat of driver of the car while appellant Amjad Ali was sitting on the seat next to him and appellant Asad Ali was sitting on the rear seat. Appellant Arshad All fled away on seeing the police party. The two other appellants were apprehended and search of the car was carried out. Heroin weighing 500 grams, Charas weighing 4 kilograms and 31 bottles of liquor were recovered from the boot of the car. The S.H.O. Took samples from all the narcotics and also sent written complaint to Police Station Hazro for registration of the case.

2. Appellant Arshad All was arrested on 25-9-1990. After investigation all the 3 appellants were sent up for trial before Qazi Habib-ur-Rehman Anjum, Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate 1st Class, Attock exercising powers under section 30, Cr.P.C., who charged them under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, to which all the three appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. 5 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the State. All the 3 appellants made depositions under section 342, Cr.P.C. They also produced defence witnesses and also made depositions on oath.

4. After the conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate convicted all the 3 appellants under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, to suffer 10 stripes and to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months. All the 3 convicts have challenged their conviction and sentences by the appeal in hand.

5. The raid was conducted at 4-00 a.m. On 31-8-1990 and appellant Arshad Ali was not apprehended from the spot. It was the case of prosecution that the other two appellants were apprehended from inside the car and the narcotics were also recovered from its boot. It is significant to note that the car was never produced as case property during the trial. The defence witnesses, who are residents of the same area and lived in the houses dose to the house of the appellants, had all deposed on oath that the police party had raided the house of the appellants for carrying out its search for the purpose of recovery of the narcotics. The non-production of the car as case property during the trial would lend credit to the defence version that the police party had raided the premises of the appellants and had carried out search thereof. However, the complainant had not taken two respectable persons of the locality alongwith him for the search proceedings. Consequently he had violated the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. This was an illegality and had rendered the entire search proceedings invalid. Moreover appellant Arshad All was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence and he could not be charged for being found in possession of any narcotics.

6. Consequently the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of appellants Arshad Ali, Asad All and Amjad Ali sons of Rahat All Khan are set aside. They are acquitted of the offence for which they were convicted and sentenced. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Cited by 6 cases

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