Raid-Fundamental right-Petitioner was arrested on 23/2/1999 by I.P/CIA during said at his house as 26 K.G Charas, was recovered from a drum being inside room of his house-It appears that law givers have coached S. 20 of the Act in such manner that it does not place a mandatory obligation upon investigating agency to obtain search warrants from the Special judge before conducting a raid-All parts of a statute are required to be enforced in letter and spirit and no plea can be entertained that a particular part of a statute is redundant-But from the language employed in a statute it can be gathered whether it is mandatory or directory in its nature – In section 20 of the Act word “may” has been used with reference to obtaining search warrants by the agency who intended to effect search of a house, place, premises or conveyance etc-It is also known principle of interpretation of statute that word “may” sometimes can be used as “shall” -But perusal of section 20 of the Act suggests that law has not prescribed consequences of conducted search without obtaining the warrants from special Court-It is directory in nature, therefore, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case if the investigating agency has not obtained search warrants from special judge before conducting raid in a house for the recovery of narcotics, this reason alone would not be sufficient to vitiate the trial-There is yet another important aspect of the case whether petitioner being a citizen was not entitled for the protection of Article 14 of Constitution-Object of conducting raid after obtaining warrants of search from the court is to ensure privacy of home of a citizen in whose house raid is conducted. 2000 PSC (Crl.) SC (Pak) 792
Prosecution witnesses proved possession of seized narcotics–Its recovery during search of house was not denied by appellant–Chemical expert appeared in Court and produced his report–Appellant’s plea that he had no concern with seized narcotic without furnishing reasonable explanation for same–Nothing on record to indicate his false involvement in this case or mala fide on part of police officials to have deposed against him maliciously–Held: It cannot be believed that police officials would plant narcotics on appellant from their own source or. substitute him for real culprit–Held further: Appellant failed to discharge burden as per provisions contained in Section 29 of said Act.