Summary: (Against the order/judgment dated 20.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in Crl. A. No. (T)67 of 2021). (a) Maxim--- ----Communi observantia non set recedendum---Connotation---When law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done accordingly and if prescribed procedure is not followed, it would be presumed that the same had not been done in accordance with law. Noman Mansoor v. State PLD 2024 SC 805; Ahmed Ali v. State 2023 SCMR 781; Ameer Zeb v. State PLD 2012 SC 380 and Muhammad Hashim v. State PLD 2004 SC 856 rel. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Police Rules, 1934, R. 22.70, Register No. XIX---Recovery of narcotic substance---Re-appraisal of evidence---Safe custody and transmission of case property---Collective forensic report of all samples---Accused was arrested for recovery of 100 packets of charas, weighing 100 grams each---Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life---Validity---Safe custody and safe transmission of alleged drug from the spot of recovery till its receipt by Narcotic Testing Laboratory were not satisfactorily established---It was mandated in Police Rules, 1934 that case property must be kept in Malkhana and entry of the same must be recorded in Register No. XIX of that police station---It was duty of police and prosecution to establish that case property was kept in safe custody, and if required to be sent to any laboratory for analysis, to further establish its safe transmission and also record it in the relevant register, including road certificate etc.---Procedure in Police Rules, 1934 ensured that case property, when it was produced before Court, had remained in safe custody and was not tampered with until that time---Complete mechanism was provided in Police Rules, 1934 regarding safe custody and safe transmission of case property to concerned laboratory and then to Trial Court---Each sample was to be tested separately and individual reports must be prepared for each sample---Collective forensic report not only diminished credibility of chemical examination but also raised serious questions regarding representative nature of samples sent for analysis---In the present case. there were serious procedural violations, absence of credible forensic evidence and failure to establish safe custody and transmission---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused as prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Ameer Zeb v. State PLD 2012 SC 380; Asif Ali v. State 2024 SCMR 1408 and Zain Shahid v. State 2024 SCMR 843 rel. Muhammad Shabbir Rajput, Advocate Supreme Court and Asif Ali Talpur, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ms. Rubina Butt, State Counsel for the State. Date of hearing: 10th March, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 03.06.2023 passed by Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat in Cr.Appeal No. 159-M of 2022). Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019)--- ----S. 9(1)(d)---Recovery of narcotic substance---Re-appraisal of evidence---Chain of custody---Scope---Opium weighing 16215 grams was allegedly recovered from accused while transporting the same in a car---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life---Validity---For justifying conviction of accused, prosecution had to establish that chain of custody was safe, secure and indispensable in order to place reliance on the report of Chemical Examiner---Prosecution failed to establish such chain of safe custody and transmission of samples of narcotic from place of seizure to police station and thereafter to Chemical Examiner---Sanctity of chain of transmission stands as the cornerstone for maintaining integrity and evidentiary credibility, particularly in narcotics cases where law imposes severe and inexorable punishments---Any rupture or inconsistency in chain of custody strikes at the root of prosecution's case rendering evidence susceptible to doubt and challenge---Prosecution bears burden of ensuring unbroken, meticulously documented chain of custody so as to preclude any possibility of tampering, substitution or contamination---If prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of transmission of narcotic sample and any breakage or discrepancy is observed in custody of removed substance, the benefit of such lapse must necessarily be extended to accused---When prosecution's evidence is tainted with doubt, scales of justice must tilt in favor of accused---Any failure to prove safe and continuous handling of narcotic sample from seizure to forensic analysis, not only weakens prosecution's case, but also vitiates reliability of evidence entitling accused to benefit of doubt---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and he was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Javed Iqbal v. The State 2023 SCMR 139; Qaiser Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 363; Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State 2021 SCMR 451; Zubair Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 492 and Asif Ali and another v. The State 2024 SCMR 1408 ref. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State. Date of hearing: 4th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: ----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Recovery of 12 kilograms of charas concealed in vehicle---Conviction maintained, sentence reduced---Accused was apprehended with 12 kilograms of charas hidden in a secret cavity under the second seat of a Toyota Hiace vehicle---Prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and recovery officials, consistently deposed regarding the recovery---Ten representative sample parcels were collected and sent for chemical analysis, confirming the substance to be charas---However, trial court failed to de-seal and exhibit case property in open court in terms of proper evidentiary protocols, raising procedural concerns---Held, while conviction was sustainable on available evidence, sentence of life imprisonment was disproportionate given the absence of prior criminal record and infirmities in procedural handling of case property---Sentence reduced to period already undergone. Cited case: Ameer Zeb v. The State PLD 2012 SC 380 (b) Criminal trial: ----Exhibition of case property---Mandatory requirement---Failure to de-seal parcel and exhibit recovered packets of contraband in open court---Held, trial court presumed contents of sealed parcel (Exh.P1) contained narcotics without de-sealing or marking individual packets in public view---Such presumption undermines evidentiary value---Proper exhibition of case property in open court is essential for identification and reference throughout proceedings and appellate review. Cited cases: • Amjad Saddique v. The State 2016 PCrLJ 1800 (Lahore) • Aziz Ullah v. Muhammad Haneef PLD 2018 Lahore 132 (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 342---Failure to confront accused with chemical examiner’s report---Held, non-confrontation of material evidence (i.e., forensic report confirming presence of charas) with the accused in statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., is a procedural lapse---While not fatal in light of other corroborative evidence, such lapse must be considered in determining appropriateness of sentence. (d) Narcotic recovery---Chain of custody and compliance: ----Sample dispatch and forensic confirmation---Held, sample parcels were promptly separated, sealed, and dispatched to chemical examiner the following day---Chain of custody and integrity of samples remained intact---Chemical examiner confirmed presence of charas in all ten sample parcels---Prosecution's chain-of-custody compliance was adequate and supported conviction. (e) Criminal trial: ----Conscious possession---Failure to establish ownership of vehicle---Accused was driving vehicle at the time of interception but no documentary evidence produced to establish his ownership or direct connection with vehicle or secret cavity where narcotics were found---Held, while accused’s custody of vehicle supported inference of knowledge, prosecution’s failure to investigate vehicle ownership weakened proof of conscious possession. **(f) Sentencing---Mitigation---First offender---Quantum of sentence---Accused had no previous criminal record and prosecution failed to connect him with alleged drug kingpin Momin Khan---Held, sentence of life imprisonment not justified in absence of aggravating factors or proven conspiracy---Appellant’s sentence reduced to term already undergone including default imprisonment on fine. ---Disposition: Appeal dismissed as to conviction---Sentence reduced to period already undergone.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: –––Ss. 9(c), 15 & 29–––Possession of narcotics–––Recovery of large quantity–––Presumption under S.29–––Driver of vehicle–––Appellant was apprehended while driving a vehicle carrying 13.2 kg of opium and 4.8 kg of charas hidden in a secret cavity–––Prosecution established continuous chain of custody from recovery to chemical analysis through unimpeached testimony of PW.2 and PW.3–––Chemical Examiner’s reports confirmed presence of narcotics and were found to be in compliance with the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001–––Held, driver of vehicle is presumed to be in possession and knowledge of narcotics unless rebutted–––Appellant failed to produce any convincing evidence to rebut presumption or establish false implication–––Appeal dismissed–––Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with fine upheld. Cited Cases: • Faisal Shahzad v. The State, 2022 SCMR 905 • Ajab Khan v. The State, 2022 SCMR 317 • Muhammad Noor v. The State, 2010 SCMR 927 • Sherzada v. The State, 1993 SCMR 149 • Nadir Khan v. The State, 1988 SCMR 1899 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––Ss. 103, 161, 342 & 382-B–––Non-association of public witnesses–––Effect–––Appellant argued that no private person was made witness to the recovery, violating S.103 Cr.P.C.–––Held, S.25 of CNSA explicitly excludes the application of S.103 Cr.P.C.–––Police witnesses are competent and their testimony cannot be discarded merely due to official status–––Statements of PWs remained consistent on material points and withstood cross-examination–––No mala fides or animosity alleged against prosecution witnesses–––Benefit of S.382-B Cr.P.C. was rightly extended by Trial Court. Cited Cases: • Zaffar v. The State, 2008 SCMR 1254 • State/ANF v. Muhammad Arshad, 2017 SCMR 283 • Salah-ud-Din v. The State, 2010 SCMR 1962 (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872): –––Burden of proof–––Presumption of possession–––Appellant failed to discharge burden under S.29 of CNSA–––Vehicle was in appellant’s control and narcotics were hidden in a concealed cavity–––Held, items recovered from a vehicle in an accused’s control are presumed to be in his possession and knowledge–––Appellant’s denial was not substantiated with any credible evidence–––Mere procedural objections do not outweigh the substantial and consistent prosecution evidence. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Noor v. The State, 2010 SCMR 927 • Adil Ahmed v. Deputy Collector C&CE, 1991 SCMR 1951 • Rab Nawaz v. The State, PLD 1984 SC 858

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – Ss. 6, 9(c), 51 – Possession of 3.6 kg charas – Post-arrest bail – Suckling baby in jail with accused – Bail denied ––– Accused, a woman, was found in possession of 3600 grams of charas divided into three packets—The offence falls under Section 9(c) CNSA 1997, punishable with imprisonment not less than nine years—Learned counsel argued for bail on the ground that the accused had her suckling child with her in prison—Held, mere presence of suckling child does not entitle a female accused to bail in narcotics cases unless further inquiry or mala fide is established—Petitioner failed to show any animus by police or doubt on recovery—Held, mothers must also bear responsibility for endangering their children’s welfare by indulging in criminal conduct—Petition dismissed. ----Cited Cases: Mst. Tahira Batool v. The State, PLD 2022 SC 764 Mst. Fursan v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1950 Mst. Nasira Bibi v. The State, PLD 1998 Lahore 146 Mst. Nazo v. The State, 2013 MLD 1860 Malita Syed Shah v. The State, 2009 YLR 1029 Mst. Asiya v. The State, 2023 SCMR 383 Mst. Ishrat Bibi v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1528 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – S. 497 – Bail in bailable vs. non-bailable offences – Woman accused of narcotics trafficking – No absolute right to bail on ground of gender or parenthood ––– Held, while gender and motherhood may be considered mitigating circumstances, they do not create an absolute right to bail in narcotics cases—Each case must be assessed on its own merits—Where evidence shows clear connection to crime and falls under statutory bar of Section 51 CNSA, bail may be refused despite gender or child welfare arguments. (c) Narcotics – Women as drug carriers – Judicial policy – Deterrence – Public safety: ––– Court observed an increasing trend of women being used as drug carriers by criminal syndicates in hopes of securing bail—Such trends require courts to be vigilant and firm in applying the law—Held, “the hallow of respectability and modesty woven around the traditional woman” cannot be presumed in such serious criminal matters—Courts must treat narcotics offences involving women based on evidence, not presumptions of virtue. Cited Case: Mst. Taj Bibi v. The State, PLD 1989 Quetta 60 (d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – S. 51 – Bar on bail – Application to female accused: ––– Section 51 explicitly provides that bail shall not be normally granted in narcotics cases—Court held that this bar is applicable to women as well where sufficient incriminating material connects them to the offence—No exception created under CNSA for women unless falling under categories of further inquiry or legal infirmity in prosecution case. ----Disposition: Bail petition dismissed – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously on day-to-day basis, considering presence of suckling baby with accused in jail.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: ----S. 9(1)(c)----Possession of narcotics----Bail after arrest----Petitioner apprehended for alleged possession of 1100 grams of heroin for sale----Bail refused by High Court----Standard of proof in narcotics cases must be high due to severe punishments prescribed under the Act----Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt both possession and intent to sell. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 164----Use of modern devices in evidence collection----Failure of law enforcement to record recovery process on video or take photographs despite judicial directives----Non-collection of digital evidence weakens prosecution case and creates doubt in favor of accused----Reliance solely on police testimony insufficient to meet burden of proof in cases involving severe penalties. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 103----Search and seizure----Non-association of independent witnesses at the time of recovery----Violation of procedural safeguards raises serious concerns regarding fairness of investigation----Absence of independent corroboration further tilts the case in favor of the accused. (d) Administration of justice: ----Presumption of innocence and principle of bail----Courts must ensure that accused persons are not wrongfully incarcerated, particularly in cases where prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof----Ultimate conviction can repair mistaken relief, but prolonged unjust incarceration causes irreparable harm----Bail granted in light of inadequate evidence and judicial directives promoting procedural transparency. ----Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order set aside. Petitioner granted post-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000 with two sureties. ----Cited Cases: Zahid Sarfaraz Gill v. State (2024 SCMR 934) Manzoor v. State (PLD 1972 SC 81)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019), S.9(D)---Possession of narcotic substances---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Prosecution case was that 7200 grams opium and 7200 grams charas was recovered from both the accused/petitioners respectively---No doubt, both petitioners were found in possession of huge quantity of contraband opium and charas, however, record prima facie revealed that spot/recovery proceedings were not recorded in the shape of video---No private witness had been associated with the spot proceedings for ensuring transparency---Record was also silent to show any previous involvement of petitioners in such like offence or that they were drug peddlers---Besides, investigation of the case was complete and the petitioners were no more required for investigation---At the same time, the record also revealed that in respect of one of the petitioners, positive pregnancy report was present--- Besides, on account of her arrest two of her minor children were also confined with her and exposed to hostile as well as unfavorable environment of the prison---Welfare of minor children could not be ignored---No doubt, petitioners were arrested on account of recovery of huge quantity of contraband from their direct possession however, positive pregnancy report of one of the petitioners coupled with the confinement of minors with her, had made out her case for the purpose of bail under first proviso of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Although, the case of co-accused was distinguishable from that of petitioner, but she had also made out her case for the purpose of bail---Bail petition was allowed in circumstances. Imdad Ullah v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 652 and Mst. Nusrat v. The State 1996 SCMR 973 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Scope---Release of accused on bail did not amount to acquittal, it is merely a change in the custody of accused where same is taken from the State and entrusted to his/her sureties. Haji Muhammad Nazir and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 807; Zaigham Ashraf v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 18 and Zahid Sarfaraz Gill v. The State 2024 SCMR 934 rel. Hamad Hussain for Petitioner. Nauroz Khan Addl. A.G for the State. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2025.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 04.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Mirpurkhas in Cr. Appeal No. D-45 of 2024). Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9 (c)---Recovery of narcotic substance---Un-broken chain of custody---Proof---Accused was convicted for recovery of 1400 grams of charas from his possession and was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years---Validity---Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Chain of custody remained unverified, and prosecution did not conclusively establish safe transmission of recovered contraband---Contradictions in handling of case property and failure to produce key witnesses responsible for its movement further weakened the prosecution's case---Where any link in chain of evidence remains doubtful, the benefit thereof must accrue to accused---Prosecution was under a bounded duty to establish each stage of recovery, storage, and transmission of case property with unimpeachable certainty, and its failure to do so had rendered the conviction unsustainable---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence imposed on accused by two Courts below and he was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Zahir Shah v. The State 2019 SCMR 2004; Sarfraz Ahmed v. The State 2024 SCMR 1571; Muhammad Hazir v. The State 2023 SCMR 986 and Javed Iqbal v. The State 2023 SCMR 139 rel. Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Shabbir Rajput, Advocates Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Siraj Ali Khan, APG for the State. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: ----S. 9(2)(3)---Recovery of narcotics---Possession---Ecstasy pills---Acquittal---Appellant/accused, an MBBS doctor, was convicted under S.9(2) of the CNSA, 1997 on the allegation of possessing 3100 Ecstasy pills recovered from his flat and vehicle---Conviction was based on disclosure of two co-accused arrested in a separate FIR---Appellant was apprehended from his residence where 2600 Ecstasy pills were allegedly recovered beneath a sofa and another 500 from the dashboard of his vehicle---Appellant denied ownership of the premises and vehicle---Held, no documentary evidence (e.g., ownership or rent agreement) was produced by prosecution to establish lawful possession of the premises or vehicle by the appellant---Alleged recovery thus suffered from legal infirmity. Cited cases: Taj Wali v. The State PLD 2005 Karachi 128 (b) Criminal trial: ----Chain of custody---Failure to prove---Delay in chemical examination---Prosecution failed to establish unbroken chain of custody of seized narcotics between initial recovery and forensic analysis---Sealed parcels allegedly handed over to PFSA on 15.11.2023 were shown in evidence to have been received on 16.11.2023, leaving a gap in custody not explained by prosecution---Furthermore, prosecution failed to prove safe transmission of case property back from PFSA to police after issuance of report---No evidence on record that PFSA-returned parcels were ever received back into Maalkhana---Such gaps create serious doubts in the prosecution case. ----Cited cases: • Muhammad Iftikhar v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ 1233 • Muhammad Nafees v. The State 2021 PCr.LJ 63 • Abid Ali v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ 1088 • Arzi Gull v. The State 2020 PCr.LJ 178 (c) Criminal trial: ----Contradictions in evidence---Prosecution claimed recovery of 2600 and 500 Ecstasy pills respectively in two parcels sent for forensic analysis---PFSA report revealed 2746 and 468 pills in respective parcels---Such material contradictions in quantity and identity of narcotics undermine reliability of recovery evidence and credibility of prosecution case---Held, when any limb of evidence is found to be dubious, benefit must go to accused. (d) Criminal trial: ----Bias in investigation---Complainant also acted as investigating officer---Held, investigation conducted by complainant himself raises serious concerns of impartiality and fairness---It is settled principle that complainant should not investigate his own complaint to avoid conflict of interest and ensure fair trial---Such investigation is inherently flawed. Cited case: Taj Wali v. The State PLD 2005 Karachi 128 (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 342---Defence plea---Appellant stated that he had no connection with the recovered narcotics and was falsely implicated due to a personal dispute with co-accused, who were his former patients---No independent evidence produced by prosecution to refute defence version or prove conscious possession. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed---Conviction set aside---Accused acquitted of all charges.

Summary: Post Arrest Bail in FIR No. 167-2023 dated 27.09.2023 Offence U/s 9 (1) 6(c) CNSA PS ANF/RD, Islamabad. (a) Criminal Law – Bail in Narcotics Cases – Interpretation of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1898 – Section 497(1) – Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA) – Section 51 – Held, the term "punishable" under Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. refers to the maximum punishment prescribed for an offence, not the minimum – If the offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years or more, it falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., thereby restricting the grant of bail unless exceptional circumstances exist – Judicial interpretation of "punishable" must align with legislative intent and legal precedents. (b) Bail Considerations in Narcotics Cases – Application of the Prohibitory Clause: ---- Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA) – Section 9 – Section 51 – Section 49A – Held, any offence under the CNSA carrying a maximum punishment of 10 years or more automatically attracts the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., thereby limiting the discretionary power of courts to grant bail – The concept of "borderline cases" previously applied to minor narcotics offences no longer holds relevance under the amended law – However, courts retain the power to grant bail based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. (c) Remand Period in Narcotics Cases – Duty of Investigating Authorities: ---- Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – Section 49A – Held, under the 2022 amendment, the maximum period of remand in narcotics cases has been extended to 90 days – Courts must consider the nature of investigation and ensure that remand is granted for a reasonable period to facilitate tracing the source, network, and financial assets linked to narcotics operations – The practice of granting only one or two days of remand is contrary to the spirit of the Act. (d) Investigative Duties in Narcotics Cases – Scope and Obligations: ---- Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – Sections 6, 7, 8, 37, 38, 39, 42 – Held, narcotics investigations must not be limited to the arrest of drug peddlers but must extend to identifying cultivators, manufacturers, financiers, and traffickers – Law enforcement agencies are duty-bound to trace and freeze illicit assets linked to drug trade under Sections 37-39 of the CNSA – Failure to investigate financial transactions and higher-level operators in drug networks amounts to dereliction of duty. (e) Prosecution's Role in Curbing Drug Trade – Need for Systematic Enforcement: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1898 – Section 497 – Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – Sections 6, 8, 14, 37-42 – Held, narcotics control requires comprehensive investigations beyond mere arrests, ensuring that all actors in the supply chain, from manufacturers to financiers, are held accountable – Courts emphasize that prosecutors and investigating officers must pursue assets derived from drug trafficking and initiate confiscation proceedings under Section 37-42 of the CNSA – Inadequate investigation or failure to act on financial crimes associated with narcotics trade renders the legal framework ineffective. (f) Judicial Directives – Compliance with Law Enforcement Responsibilities: ---- Directive issued to Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF), ICT Police, and Judicial Authorities – Held, law enforcement agencies must investigate the entire chain of drug supply, identify financial beneficiaries, and ensure recovery of assets derived from illicit drug trade – Magistrates should consider the full scope of investigation while granting remand – Courts stress that merely prosecuting street-level drug peddlers without targeting larger networks is insufficient. ---Disposition: ---- Petitions disposed of – Petitioners directed to approach the relevant court for bail – Law enforcement agencies instructed to ensure full compliance with CNSA provisions – Judicial officers to consider financial tracing and asset forfeiture in narcotics cases.