THE STATE through Capt. Nooruddin, Assistant Director, AntiNarcotics Force, Multan Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID
This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, which dismissed the State's application to destroy narcotics seized as case property. The trial court had refused the request, reasoning that the serious nature of the cases and the potential for life imprisonment precluded the destruction of evidence, despite the petitioner's argument regarding the difficulty of producing such property at every hearing. The core legal question was whether the court has the discretion to order the destruction of narcotics before the final conclusion of a criminal trial. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in its refusal. The Court clarified that the law does not mandate retaining all case property until a final verdict. Under the relevant statutory provisions, the court is empowered to supervise the destruction of narcotics, provided it first obtains and secures representative samples. The Court held that once proper samples are preserved, the remaining narcotics can be destroyed, as the samples are legally deemed to represent the whole property for trial purposes.
- Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandate that case property must be retained until the final conclusion of a criminal trial?
- What is the legal procedure for the destruction of narcotics seized as case property during the pendency of a trial?
- Can a court order the destruction of narcotics before the final disposal of the case if representative samples are preserved?
- Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This petition is directed against the order, dated 19-6-2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide which he dismissed the application of the petitioner for the grant of permission to destroy the narcotics which are subject-matter of the cases mentioned in the said application.
The only ground which found with the learned trial Court for' dismissing the application was as under:-- "The cases pending before this Court being serious in nature and question of life and death of the accused persons being involved, this Court cannot exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner of this application on the ground that much hardship would be faced in production of narcotics before the Court on each date of hearing, which ground is otherwise not provided in section 516-A, Cr.P.C."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 35 cases in which the application was moved, 10 have already been decided finally. The learned A.A.-G. Who was directed to assist submitted that the only pre-requisite for the learned trial Court to decide the application was a notice to the concerned accused and then it was for the trial Court to exercise its discretion judiciously.
3. None has appeared for respondent despite notice.
4. Heard.
5. There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code which mandates that the case property cannot be disposed of till a case is finally decided. The law in fact specifically provides that where the property is perishable the Court may pass an appropriate order for its disposal during the pendency of the case. If the case property is a dangerous drug/intoxicant/ A liquor or any other narcotics substance, the law has stipulated a specific procedure in second proviso of section 516- A, Cr.P.C. Which provides as under:-- "The Court may, either on an application or of its own motion and under its supervision and control, obtain and prepare such number of samples of the property as it may deem fit for safe custody and production before it or any other Court and cause destruction of the remaining portion of the property under a certificate issued by it in that behalf: ' Provided also that such samples shall be deemed to be whole of the property in an inquiry or proceedings in relation to such offence before any authority or Court."
In the instant case, we note that no objection was raised on behalf of the accused before the learned trial Court with regard to the application made by the State. The accused would have his right to question the veracity of the report of the Chemical Analyst qua the samples in question at an appropriate stage during trial. So far as the destruction of the remaining case property/narcotics substance is concerned, there was no justifiable reason for the learned trial Court to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner. The only pre-requisite for the exercise of jurisdiction was obtaining and preparing number of samples of the property by the Court under its supervision and control and thereafter issuing a certificate for the destruction of the remaining property. We, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the impugned order and direct that subject to following the procedure laid down in the aforereferred Provision of law the learned trial Court shall issue a certificate prayed for by the State. Disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE 2006 PLD Peshawar 39