Case property refers to any physical item or evidence collected during an investigation and presented before the court during a criminal trial. It plays a crucial role in establishing the guilt or innocence of an accused. Proper sealing, sampling, chain of safe custody and production of case property before the court are vital for ensuring the integrity and reliability of evidence. Any lapses in this process can significantly impact the outcome of a trial.
The primary purpose of sealing case property is to preserve its authenticity and prevent tampering or contamination. Sealing ensures that evidence remains intact from the moment it is recovered until it is presented in court. Under Police Rules and High Court Rules, in all cases, especially in cases where articles are sent to chemical examiner, it is necessary to make it clear that throughout the various stages of inquiry, which person had the custody or charge of those articles. Moreover the person who packed, sealed and dispatched the articles must be examined as a witness.
Why is The Case Property To Be Produced And Exhibited During The Trial?
The relevant provisions of law which govern the production and handling of case property are discussed below:
Rule 22.16 of the Police Rules, 1934, pertains to case property. According to sub-rule (1), in specific situations, the police are required to seize weapons, articles, and property related to criminal cases, as well as take possession of any unclaimed property. Sub-rule (2) further states that every item seized under sub-rule (1) — excluding cattle — must be clearly marked or labeled with the name of the individual from whom it was taken or the location where it was found, along with a reference to the relevant case diary or other official police report. If the items are packed into a parcel, it must be sealed with sealing wax imprinted with the seal of the responsible officer, and the parcel must also bear appropriate identification. These items or parcels must then be kept securely until they are disposed of in accordance with applicable laws or regulations.
Rule 14-F of the High Court Rules stipulates that clothing, weapons, money, ornaments, food, and all other items constituting part of the circumstantial evidence must be presented before the Court. Furthermore, their relevance to the case and their identification must be established through witness testimony.
Rule 14-H of the High Court Rules states that all exhibits must be assigned a letter or number for identification. Any article presented as evidence should have a label attached to it displaying a specific number, which must be consistently referenced throughout the record whenever the item is mentioned. Additionally, each exhibit should be clearly marked as either “admitted” or “not admitted.” If the police have already numbered the exhibits, those existing numbers should be noted to prevent any confusion. A printed label must be affixed to each exhibit, containing the exhibit number, name of the person producing it, admission status (with the Court’s signature), date, case reference, and a brief description of the item.
Custody of Case Property
According to the Police Rules, case property must be stored in the Malkhana, and its entry must be duly recorded in Register No. XIX of the concerned police station. It is the responsibility of the police and the prosecution to prove that the property remained in secure custody. In instances where the property needs to be sent to a laboratory for analysis, its secure transmission must also be demonstrated, with corresponding entries made in the relevant registers, including the road certificate and other required documentation. The Rules provide a comprehensive mechanism for both the safekeeping and for its secure transfer to the appropriate laboratory and subsequently to the trial court.
Effect of Non Production of Case Property During Trial
The non-production of case property at trial can severely undermine the prosecution’s case. Courts in both Pakistan and India have consistently held that failure to produce essential physical evidence casts significant doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the prosecution’s claims.
If the contraband, which forms the basis of a person’s conviction, is neither produced nor exhibited in court, how can such a conviction be upheld? In the absence of the actual material (narcotics), it can reasonably be presumed that no such item exists. When the prosecution fails to present the most crucial evidence—such as the narcotics, or vehicle involved—and offers no satisfactory explanation for this omission, an adverse inference may be drawn against it under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. In such circumstances, it is justifiable to conclude that the alleged contraband or material evidence does not, in fact, exist. (2023 SCMR 781) Ahmed Ali and Another vs The state.
In the case of State of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan v. Kenneth Marshal and 2 others (2005 SCMR 594), the Court observed that the prosecution had repeatedly failed to present and exhibit the case property, despite being granted several opportunities by the trial court. Given these circumstances, the High Court rightly concluded that there was no likelihood of securing a conviction against the accused, and continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.
In the case of Amjad Ali v. State (2012 SCMR 577), it was acknowledged that the case property—the stepney of the car—was never produced during the trial to confirm whether it could actually hold the large quantity of narcotics alleged. This significant element of doubt in the prosecution’s case led the Court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
In the case of Gul Dast Khan v. the State (2009 SCMR 431), it was held that the case property has neither been exhibited nor produced at the trial, and it has caused a serious dent in prosecution case.
Regarding case-law from the Indian jurisdiction on this issue, it is pertinent to note that in Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 5 SCC 123], the Supreme Court of India observed that the alleged narcotic powder said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused, was never produced before the trial court as a material exhibit. Furthermore, no explanation was provided for this non-production. Consequently, there was no evidence linking the forensic report to the substance allegedly seized from the appellant or the other accused.
In the case of Vijay Pandey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [(2019) 18 SCC 215], the Court held that the prosecution’s failure to establish a link between the seized sample and the one allegedly recovered from the appellant was effectively equivalent to not producing the seized sample at all. Under such circumstances, the mere presentation of a laboratory report confirming the tested sample as narcotics cannot, on its own, serve as conclusive proof. It is essential to demonstrate a clear correlation between the seized substance and the one tested.
Procedure Of Handling Case Property in Narcotics Cases
The Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 outlines strict procedures for the handling and testing of seized narcotics. At the recovery site, a reasonable quantity/sample of the seized substance must be immediately be taken and dispatched to the nearest Federal Narcotic Testing Laboratory via insured post or authorized messenger. The sample must be sent at the earliest and not later than 72 hours of the seizure, sealed and marked as a “Secret Drug Sample,” accompanied by a Test Memorandum (Form-I).
Upon receipt, the laboratory assigns a distinct number, logs the sample in a dedicated register, and passes it the same day to the analyst, who secures it and verifies the markings and weight against the Test Memorandum. The chemical analysis must not be delayed, as courts typically require a report within 15 days. Once completed, the analysis report and test details are signed in quadruplicate and promptly sent back using Form-II.
Relevant Provision in Code of Criminal Procedure
Under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the court can order the custody or disposal of property pending trial. If the seized property is a dangerous drug, intoxicant, liquor, or narcotic substance, the court—either on application or suo motu—may, under its supervision, take and preserve samples for evidence and order destruction of the rest. A certificate must be issued for the destruction.
These samples, once certified, are legally treated as the entire property for any future inquiry or trial. However, both the sample parcels and the destruction certificate must be produced before the trial court and properly exhibited with the Magistrate’s report.
Chain of Safe Custody of Sample
In a case where prosecution relies on the report of an expert and demands conviction on the basis thereof, it is under obligation to establish the chain of safe custody of case property which means safe transmission of the alleged material from spot of recovery till its receipt by the Government Analyst. Therefore prosecution must prove that:
i. Parcels were made at crime scene in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law.
ii. Before dispatch of parcels of samples to the Government Analyst, those were kept in safe custody by an authorized officer.
iii. Those were deposited by an official in the office of Government Analyst.
The chain must be proven in court through the testimony of all relevant witnesses. It should remain continuous, unquestionable, reliable, and securely maintained. Any disruption in this chain can raise doubts about the integrity of safe custody and the credibility of the Government Analyst’s report. (2021 LHC 1953) Muhammad Mukhtiar & Another vs The State.
