Complete Case Judgment

1 of 1

http://pakistanlawsite.com/LawOnline/law/casedescription.asp?Casedes...

2012 P Cr. L J 796

[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar and Muhammad Noor Meskanzai, JJ
BILAL AHMED---Appellant
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No.12 of 2010, decided on 27th October, 2011.
Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908)------Ss. 4(b) & 7---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.19(8-b) & 27-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), S.510---Possessing explosive substance---Appreciation of evidence---Counsel for the accused had
contended that as proper sanction was not obtained from the Provincial Government for prosecution of the
case as required under S.19(8-b) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the proceedings conducted by the Trial Court
were in violation of relevant provision of law; that the F.I.R. had been registered by CIA, who had no
authority to make investigation in the matter and their only duty was to assist the Police; that Investigating
Officer was bound to investigate the matter independent of the material collected by CIA, which had
adversely affected the case of the prosecution; that no report of expert was present on record, nor even the
material alleged to be recovered was examined by the expert, only an unauthorized report had been produced
during course of evidence, which was not admissible in evidence under the law and that as false case had
been made out against accused, which the prosecution had failed to establish, accused was liable to be
acquitted---Validity---Prosecutor-General though had conceded that no such sanction was obtained, but as
accused was tried by a Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, procedure as provided in
the special statute should be adopted and S.19(8-b) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which had provided the
procedure had been complied with---Proceedings were rightly held by the Trial Court against accused, in
circumstances---Trial Court having discussed the objections and had arrived at the conclusion that it was a
mere irregularity and not an illegality, which could not vitiate the case of the prosecution, which otherwise,
was based on convincing and direct evidence---Personnel of CIA, in the case, had not made the investigation,
but their act was confined only to the extent of apprehending of the suspected person effecting of recovery,
preparation of seizure memo and parcels---Investigating Officer was separately appointed, who did the job
and submitted Police report/challan before the court---Act of CIA, in circumstances, did not vitiate the
proceedings, as it was nowhere established that prejudice had been caused to the accused---In view of S.510,
Cr.P.C., production of Chemical Examiner, Assistant Chemical Examiner, Serologist, Finger Print Expert or
Firearm Expert, subject to appointed by the Government were not required---Recovered material, in the case
was not sent to the Ballistic Expert for obtaining his opinion---Sending of recovered material for an Expert
opinion was not mandatory in all cases---Opinion of the expert, though was an important piece of evidence,
but where the prosecution established its case with direct and confidence inspiring evidence, the
report of an expert was of less value---Section 27-A of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had provided a
presumption against a person being found in possession of any explosive substance---Prosecution had
discharged the burden while establishing recovery of explosive substance from possession of accused--Burden thus shifted on the accused to establish the contrary, which accused failed---Accused, having failed to

19/08/2015 08:57