Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---- ----S. 9(c)---Recovery of narcotics---Contradictions in statements of recovery witnesses---Effect---Prosecution alleged recovery of 15 kilograms charas from petitioner while he was riding motorcycle and carrying a white sack---Case mainly rested upon testimonies of SHO/seizing officer and ASI/marginal witness of recovery memo---Supreme Court found material contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding place where spy information was received, time of departure, time of arrival at spot, time of sealing of recovered substance, preparation of recovery memo, departure from place of recovery and arrival at police station---One prosecution witness also stated that another case was registered on same day against another person, while other witness expressed complete ignorance thereof---Such contradictions were not minor or inconsequential but went to root of prosecution case and impaired credibility of prosecution witnesses. (b) Criminal trial---- ----Narcotics recovery---Non-production of site plan and roznamcha/daily diary entries---Effect---Supreme Court observed that prosecution did not prepare or produce site plan of place of occurrence---Prosecution also failed to produce relevant roznamcha/daily diary entries showing departure from and arrival at police station of seizing officer---Such omissions, when considered with contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses, created serious doubt regarding prosecution version. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---- ----S. 9(c)---Safe custody and safe transmission of case property---Unbroken chain of custody---Mandatory requirement---Prosecution was required to prove safe custody and safe transmission of recovered narcotics from place of recovery till receipt in laboratory---Record showed that sealed parcel allegedly containing case property was handed over to police official, then deposited with Moharrir, but prosecution failed to clarify exact date and time when parcel was returned for onward transmission to Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory---Investigating Officer stated that he took parcel to FNTL on 21.02.2021 and handed it over on 22.02.2021, while FNTL report confirmed receipt on 22.02.2021---No plausible explanation was offered as to where and in whose custody case property remained from 19/20.02.2021 till 22.02.2021---Break in chain of custody created serious dent in prosecution case and was fatal. Cited Cases: • Qaiser Khan v. The State through Advocate-General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar 2021 SCMR 363 • Mst. Razia Sultana v. The State and another 2019 SCMR 1300 • The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others 2018 SCMR 2039 • Ikram Ullah and others v. The State 2015 SCMR 1002 • Amjad Ali v. The State 2012 SCMR 577 (d) Criminal trial---- ----Benefit of doubt---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt---Accused entitled to acquittal as of right---Supreme Court reiterated that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in mind of prudent person is sufficient to entitle accused to acquittal, not as matter of grace but as of right---Where statute provides severe and deterrent punishment, standard of proof required must be correspondingly strict and free from infirmity---In present case, cumulative effect of material contradictions, non-production of site plan and roznamcha entries, and unexplained gap in chain of safe custody rendered prosecution case doubtful. (e) Criminal trial---- ----Narcotics case---Conviction under S.9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Failure of prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt---Trial Court convicted petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with fine, and High Court maintained conviction and sentence---Supreme Court held that prosecution evidence suffered from material contradictions and failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of alleged contraband---Conviction could not be sustained on doubtful evidence. Disposition: Criminal Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner under S.9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by Trial Court and maintained by High Court were set aside; petitioner was acquitted by extending benefit of doubt and ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)— ----S. 9(2)—Possession of narcotics—Sentencing—Applicability— Petitioner was convicted for possession of one kilogram of methamphetamine (ice) and sentenced under provincial law i.e. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019—FIR, however, was registered under Federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—Held, where offence falls within ambit of Federal law and trial was conducted by Court constituted under Federal Act, conviction and sentence must be awarded under provisions of Federal Act, 1997—Application of provincial law in such circumstances was erroneous—Conviction was altered from provincial statute to Federal statute accordingly and sentence was modified in accordance with section 9(2) of the Act of 1997. (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973— ----Art. 143—Repugnancy—Federal and Provincial legislation—Primacy of Federal law— Conflict existed between Federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and provincial Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, both prescribing different punishments for same offence—Provincial law prescribed harsher punishment—Held, where provincial law is repugnant to Federal law in respect of matter within legislative competence of Parliament, Federal law shall prevail and provincial law shall be void to extent of repugnancy—Petitioner could only be sentenced under Federal law, which occupied the field—Application of provincial statute was unconstitutional and without lawful authority. (c) Criminal trial—Sentencing—Application of correct law—Duty of Court— ----Erroneous application of law—Correction— Trial Court and High Court applied provincial law despite FIR being registered under Federal law and trial conducted under Federal statute—Held, Courts are bound to sentence accused strictly in accordance with constitutionally valid and applicable law—Sentencing under incorrect statute amounts to legal error requiring correction—Ends of justice require punishment to be imposed under proper law. (d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)— ----S. 9(2)—Sentence—Reduction— Petitioner was in possession of one kilogram of methamphetamine falling within scope of section 9(2) of Act of 1997—Held, appropriate sentence was rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine—Sentence awarded under provincial statute was excessive and liable to reduction in accordance with Federal law. Disposition: Criminal Petition No.46 of 2025 was dismissed, however conviction under section 11 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 was set aside; petitioner was convicted under section 9(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentence was reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 419, 421, 422 & 423---Criminal appeal---Scope and duty of appellate court---Even where conviction not expressly challenged and prayer confined to reduction of sentence, appellate court under S.423 is duty-bound to independently peruse entire record and adjudicate appeal on merits---Appellate jurisdiction not a mechanical exercise dependent upon concessions or strategy of counsel---Liberty of citizen cannot be compromised on account of omission or concession by defence counsel---High Court required to satisfy itself regarding legality of conviction notwithstanding limited prayer---Principle reaffirmed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 423---Powers of appellate court---Phrase “after perusing such record”---Mandatory judicial obligation---Appellate court must apply independent judicial mind to evidence and law---Failure to examine record renders appellate adjudication legally vulnerable---Administration of criminal justice cannot hinge upon tactical choices of parties---Principle reiterated. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ----S. 9(c)---Standard of proof---Stringent penal statute---Prosecution required to prove charge beyond shadow of doubt---Evidence must be confidence-inspiring, consistent and free from material discrepancies---Courts below failed to appreciate evidence in proper legal perspective---Conviction recorded on infirm and unreliable evidence held unsustainable. (d) Criminal trial ----Recovery of narcotics---Material contradiction in weight of recovered contraband---Prosecution alleged recovery of twelve packets each weighing 1200 grams totalling 12 kilograms---On de-sealing and weighing before court, total weight found significantly lesser---Individual packet weights inconsistent with prosecution version---Discrepancy struck at root of prosecution case---Benefit of doubt accrued to accused. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Roznamcha entries---Safe custody of case property---Moharrir admitted no roznamcha entry regarding receipt of narcotics---Roznamcha entry failed to mention recovered charas---Chain of custody not established---Procedural lapse materially affecting prosecution case. (f) Evidence appreciation ----Contradictions---Colour and description of recovered substance---Witness described substance as brown whereas produced material was black---Seizing officer failed to describe nature and appearance of narcotics in FIR and recovery memo---Inconsistencies created serious doubt regarding genuineness of recovery. (g) Criminal trial ----Failure to collect best available evidence---CCTV footage---Accused alleged false implication and unlawful detention---Installation of CCTV cameras at police station admitted---Investigating Officer failed to secure or produce footage---Withholding of best evidence attracted adverse inference against prosecution. (h) Criminal jurisprudence ----Benefit of doubt---Even single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal---Prosecution case riddled with contradictions, discrepancies and procedural lapses---Courts below erred in sustaining conviction---Accused entitled to benefit of doubt as of right and not as concession. Cited cases: • Murad Baloch alias Michel v. State 2011 SCMR 1417 • Shahab Khan v. State 1997 SCMR 871 • Farrukh Sayyar v. Chairman NAB and others 2004 SCMR 01 Disposition: Criminal petition converted into appeal; appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 set aside; petitioner acquitted of the charge.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(1)---Prohibitory clause---Scope and determination---Whether “minimum” or “maximum” statutory punishment controls applicability of prohibitory clause---Held, where statute prescribes a sentencing range with a mandatory minimum and higher maximum (in this case, nine to fourteen years under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997), the offence falls within the prohibitory clause if the maximum sentence equals or exceeds ten years---The maximum punishment, not the minimum, governs the inquiry for purposes of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---High Court fell into error by treating nine-year minimum as a discrete “lesser punishment” and concluding that the case lay outside the prohibitory clause---Such reasoning misconstrues the legislative intent and statutory structure---Proper test is whether the maximum punishment prescribed by law attracts the clause. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ----S. 9(c) [as amended on 06.09.2022]---Punishment “not less than nine years and may extend to fourteen years”---Interpretation---Statute does not create two distinct punishments but fixes a lower and upper limit---For determining application of the prohibitory clause under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., the upper limit of fourteen years is controlling---Minimum term only sets a sentencing floor below which Court cannot go---To treat it as a “lesser alternative punishment” is contrary to settled law. (c) Bail ----Grant of bail in offences falling within prohibitory clause---Discretion and exceptional grounds---Even where prohibitory clause applies, bail may be granted on well-recognised exceptional considerations, such as further inquiry under S. 497(2), mala fides, false implication, glaring infirmities, or violation of statutory requirements (e.g., chain of custody)---However, in the present case, no perversity or misuse of concession shown---Order granting bail not recalled, though reasoning corrected. (d) Appellate jurisdiction---Interference with bail orders ----Principles---Supreme Court generally refrains from interfering with bail once granted unless order is perverse, arbitrary, or based on misreading of record---Though High Court erred in reasoning, no such perversity found---Bail maintained but reasons substituted. Held: High Court’s reasoning that offence under S. 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997, falls outside prohibitory clause because minimum punishment was nine years, was erroneous. For determining applicability of prohibitory clause under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., maximum punishment prescribed (fourteen years) is decisive. Petition disposed of; impugned order of bail maintained to extent of relief but reasons substituted. Trial Court directed to decide case expeditiously on merits, uninfluenced by observations herein. Cited Cases: Jabran and another v. The State through DG FIA & others, 2025 SCMR 1099 Muhammad Haroon v. The State, 2004 SCMR 89 Jamal-ud-Din v. The State, 2012 SCMR 573 Socha Gul v. The State, 2015 SCMR 1077 Anti-Narcotics Force v. Qasim Ali, 2019 SCMR 1928 Hazrat Amin v. The State, 2020 SCMR 418 Gul Rehman v. The State, PLD 2021 SC 795 Khuda Bux v. The State, 2010 SCMR 1160 Ghulam Murtaza v. The State, PLD 2009 Lah. 362 Majid Ali v. The State, 2022 PCr.LJ 981 Disposition: Petition disposed of—bail order maintained; reasoning corrected.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) ---- S. 9(c) – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984), Art. 122 – Conscious possession – Mere presence – Abetment – Scope. Petitioner Mst. Sumaira Bibi was merely seated on the rear seat of the intercepted vehicle from which substantial quantities of charas were recovered near the footwells of co-petitioners Muhammad Ibrahim (driver) and Gul Muhammad (front passenger). No contraband was recovered from her direct possession or on her pointation, nor was any evidence adduced showing her conscious knowledge or control over the narcotics. For a charge of abetment to succeed, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of, or actively participated in, the planning or execution of the crime. No such evidence — direct or circumstantial — existed in this case. The Court held that “possession” under law requires not mere proximity but conscious and volitional control. In absence of proof of conscious possession or knowledge, mere presence in a vehicle carrying narcotics is insufficient to sustain conviction. Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof. Therefore, her conviction was set aside and she was acquitted of all charges. Cited Principle: Burden of proof under Art.122, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 arises only after the prosecution establishes a prima facie case — which was not done here. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) ---- S. 9(c) – Possession and recovery – Safe custody – Police witnesses – Evidentiary value. Prosecution successfully proved recovery of narcotics from Muhammad Ibrahim and Gul Muhammad. From Ibrahim’s footwell, 11 packets of charas (13.2 kg total) were recovered, and from Gul Muhammad’s footwell, 10 packets (12 kg total). Recovery was supported by consistent testimony of police witnesses (PW-2 Lady Constable Shazia Bashir and PW-3 HC Umer Daraz), safe custody of samples, and a positive PFSA report confirming the seized substance. The chain of custody from seizure to laboratory analysis was shown to be intact. Defence failed to establish mala fide, enmity, or bias on part of police officials; hence, their testimony could not be discarded merely due to their official status. (c) Criminal jurisprudence – Concurrent findings – Appraisal of evidence – Scope of interference by Supreme Court. Both the trial court and High Court had concurrently held that recoveries from Muhammad Ibrahim and Gul Muhammad were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court found no legal or factual infirmity warranting interference, observing that their convictions and sentences were supported by cogent, unimpeachable evidence. Disposition: Jail Petition dismissed to the extent of Muhammad Ibrahim and Gul Muhammad; convictions and life sentences under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, maintained. Jail Petition converted into appeal and allowed to the extent of Mst. Sumaira Bibi; conviction and sentence set aside; she was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) ----Ss. 9(c), 21, 29—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984), Art. 122—Bail—Mere presence in vehicle—Doctrine of knowledge and possession—Scope. Petitioner, apprehended as passenger in truck from which narcotics were recovered from secret cavities, sought post-arrest bail. Record disclosed no material showing that petitioner had knowledge of the concealed contraband or exercised control over it. Prosecution merely established his presence in the vehicle at the time of interception, which alone could not attract liability under the Act unless knowledge, abetment, or conspiracy was proven. Held, that the concept of possession under the Act requires conscious control or awareness of the narcotic substance. In absence of evidence showing petitioner’s knowledge or participation, Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (presumption regarding possession) was inapplicable. (b) Criminal liability—Principle of individual responsibility—Familial relationship—No vicarious criminal liability. The contention that petitioner was son of the co-accused (driver) and therefore equally responsible was rejected. Court reaffirmed that criminal law is based on the principle of individual responsibility, and liability cannot be extended to family members merely on account of relationship. The Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) in his final sermon emphasized that a father is not answerable for the deeds of his son, nor a son for those of his father. Familial relation does not transmit culpability unless active abetment or facilitation is proven. (c) Criminal Procedure—Post-arrest bail—Further inquiry. Given absence of evidence establishing petitioner’s conscious possession or participation, case fell within ambit of further inquiry as contemplated by S.497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, petition was converted into appeal, impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and bail was granted. Cited Case: • Javed v. State (2017 SCMR 531) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Petitioner admitted to bail on furnishing bonds of Rs.1,000,000 with one surety in like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court.

Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 2019 ---- S. 9-D --- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 324, 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 148 & 149 --- Narcotic Substance --- Life Imprisonment --- Maintainability --- This Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal filed under Article 185(3) of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against judgment dated 16.11.2023 of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar ("the High Court"), whereby appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed and his conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 600,000/- recorded by trial Court in Crime No. 230 dated 31.08.2021, registered under Section 9-D KP CNSA, 2019 at police station IDS, Swabi, were maintained --- Prosecution's case, as set forth in Crime report, is that on 31.08.2021, complainant alongwith other police contingents (NET squad), laid nakabandi at crime scene --- In meanwhile, Datsun bearing registration No. DR-3588, coming from Mangal Chai, loaded with crushed stones, arrived, was intercepted --- Driver of vehicle, namely Irshad (present petitioner), was deboarded --- Upon his personal search, no incriminating article was recovered; however, search of Datsun led to recovery of white sacks of sugar, wherefrom 20 chunks of opium wrapped in yellow insulation tape and three packets of chars pukhta were recovered, which, upon weighment, came out to be 24885 grams of opium and 3013 grams of chars --- Test samples were separated from each piece (tikya), as such, remaining case property was packed and sealed into different parcels --- Case property was shifted to police station, and so accused alongwith vehicle --- Test samples were sent to office of Chemical Examiner, and positive report in this respect was received --- Accused-petitioner disclosed that recovered narcotics is ownership of Arshad, son of Momin; consequently, he was also booked in Crime report --- On completion of investigation, challan was submitted --- To substantiate charge, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses --- Accused was examined under Section 342 Cr. PC, however, he did not produce evidence in defence --- At conclusion of trial, accused-petitioner was adjudged guilty of offence by trial Court, convicted, and sentenced vide judgment dated 30.07.2022, as under: Under Section 9-D, KP CNSA, 2019, to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 600,000/- (Six Hundred Thousand only) --- In case of failure to pay fine, he was directed to further undergo SI for six months --- Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC was also extended to him --- His co-accused, namely Arshad Zaman, was acquitted of charge through same judgment --- Accused-petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence before High Court through Cr.A No. 787-P of 2022, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 16.11.2023 --- Aggrieved thereof, he has filed instant petition --- It was argued by learned ASC for accused-petitioner that prosecution has miserably failed to establish guilt of accused-petitioner beyond ray of doubt as prosecution's evidence is pregnant with contradictions and discrepancies --- He next maintained that accused-petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in alleged crime --- He added that during trial, neither Register No.19 nor Register No. 21 was produced in original; vehicle, wherefrom alleged contraband was recovered, was neither produced nor exhibited; and samples of narcotic were not examined separately by Chemical Examiner --- On basis of above deficiencies in prosecution evidence, learned ASC submitted that accused-petitioner deserves outright acquittal --- As against this, learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, submitted that prosecution has succeeded in proving case against accused-petitioner beyond any shadow of doubt --- According to him, there is no inconsistency in prosecution's case --- He next submitted that prosecution has proved safe transmission of case property to police station and onward transmission to FSL through PW-3 --- Heard both sides and record perused --- It is well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence arising out of maxim "communi observantia non est recedendum" that when law prescribes specific procedure, it must be followed accordingly; any deviation renders act questionable --- In this context, reference may be made to case of Noman Mansoor --- This Principle is applied more stringently in cases arising out of special enactments like "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 2019", which prescribes severe punishment to accused, therefore, it requires concrete and strong evidence to bring home guilt of accused --- Reference may be made to cases of Ahmed Ali, Muhammad Hashim, and Ameer Zeb --- It is alleged by prosecution that on relevant day and time, complainant, Akbar Ali, Inspector (PW-1) alongwith other police contingents, had laid nakabandi at Bagla Road near Bagla Kandawo, 45/46 KMs away from police station --- According to prosecution, recovery of contraband was witnessed by Fawad Khan, SHO police station, IDS (PW-2) and Gohar Khan, SI (given up) as is reflected from recovery/seizure memo (Ex.PW1/1), but neither seizing officer nor investigating officer (PW-4) bothered to place on record daily diary report to show that seizing officer alongwith other police officials had made departure from police station to spot for nakabandi to prove their presence on spot --- Whenever police official makes departure from police station, he is essentially bound to record reasons of his departure from police station, as contemplated by Rules 22.48 and 22.49 of Police Rules, 1934 --- Failure of prosecution to produce in Court daily diary of police station showing departure of police party to spot would lead to inference that police party did not leave police station and all proceedings were carried out in police station --- Fair play demands that it should have been tendered in evidence to prove fact that seizing officer alongwith other police officials, left police station to spot --- Perusal of statements of seizing officer and marginal witness of recovery memo, namely Fawad Khan, SHO (PW-2) reflect that seizing officer deposed that he stopped vehicle and searched its driver, nothing incriminating article was recovered from him, however, search of vehicle led to recovery of opium and chars --- Likewise, PW-2 stated that complainant took into possession chars and opium --- He failed to mention that at relevant time and day, accused-petitioner was driving vehicle in question, wherefrom contraband was recovered --- He did not even bother to mention registration number of vehicle or place of recovery --- Neither seizing officer nor any official of police took pain to make videography of recovery proceedings to establish that recovery of contraband was made from vehicle driven by accused-petitioner, nor photographs for complete coverage of crime scene were taken as contemplated by Rule 25.14 of Police Rules, 1934 --- Moreso, PW-2 did not disclose presence of other police officials, including second marginal witness of recovery memo on spot --- Murasila (Ex.P A/1), as per prosecution's story, was taken by Ahmad Ali, MHC, but he was not produced --- Fazal Amin, MHC, was examined as PW-3, according to him, case property was handed over to him by seizing officer, however, seizing officer did not utter even single word in this respect --- Furthermore, extracts of Registers No. 19 and 21 were tendered in evidence as Ex.PW3/1 and Ex.PW3/2, when we examined extract of Register No. 19, it appears to be on plain paper; therefore, its exhibition was rightly objected to by defence counsel --- We noticed another serious flaw in prosecution's case regarding forensic examination process --- FSL report Ex.PK/1 reflects that collective analysis of twenty parcels of opium and three parcels of chars was given --- Neither these samples were tested separately nor individual report of each sample prepared, which is violative of principles laid down in Ameer Zeb's case (supra) --- In our view, collective forensic report not only reduces credibility of chemical examination but also raises serious doubts regarding representative nature of samples sent for chemical analysis --- We also noticed that recovered substance was sealed with monogram reading as "MN", unrelated to any officer or witness involved in case, fact admitted by PW-2 and left unexplained by prosecution --- Finding serious procedural violations, absence of credible forensic evidence, and dents in prosecution's case, we conclude that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused-petitioner beyond shadow of doubt --- Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed --- Impugned judgments passed by Courts below are set aside, and appellant is acquitted of charges --- He be set at liberty, if not required to be detained in any other case --- These are detailed reasons for our short order of even date --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 —- S. 9(c) —- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A Right to fair trial — Safe custody and transmission of narcotics sample — Delay in dispatching sample — Failure to establish chain of custody — Effect — Prosecution alleged that 1280 grams of charas were recovered from the accused, with a 64-gram sample sent for chemical analysis — Delay of 15 days in sending sample to PFSA, and unexplained delay in depositing the remaining contraband in the Malkhana — Held, no evidence was presented to establish secure custody or safe transmission of the recovered substance or its sample — In absence of such foundational proof, benefit of doubt must go to the accused — Conviction under S. 9(c), CNSA could not be sustained — Reliance placed on Amjad Ali v. The State (2012 SCMR 577) and Ikramullah v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002). Disposition: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted. (b) Constitution of Pakistan —- Art. 10-A —- Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Fair investigation — Bias — Complainant and Investigating Officer being the same person — Legal permissibility and implications — Inspector Naeem Zia acted as both complainant and Investigating Officer — Held, while not expressly barred under CNSA, 1997, such dual role undermines impartiality and fairness in trial — Accused’s right to cross-examine an independent investigator was denied — Petitioner specifically alleged bias and personal animosity — Failure to assign investigation to independent officer rendered the process defective — Supreme Court reiterated that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, particularly under laws like CNSA that reverse the burden of proof — Where prejudice is pleaded, dual role of complainant-cum-IO must be avoided and justified on record. Cited Cases: • Ikramuddin Rajput v. IGP Sindh (2024 SCMR 510) • Ashiq alias Kaloo v. The State (1989 P Cr. LJ 601) (c) Police Rules, 1934 —- R. 25.2(3) Duties of Investigating Officer —- Obligation to discover truth —- Prohibition against premature commitment to prosecution narrative — Held, under R. 25.2(3), I.O. must act objectively to find the truth and arrest actual offender — Must not commit to prosecution's version prematurely — In present case, the same officer who lodged complaint also supervised recovery, recorded witness statements, prepared site plan, filed report, and supervised dispatch to Chemical Examiner — Such defective investigation was likely to contaminate justice process and offend human rights — Superior officers must ensure investigations are impartial and legal. Judicial Observation: Defective or biased investigations undermine fairness and violate Art. 10-A; emphasis laid on constitutional due process and safeguards in narcotics trials. (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 —- S. 342 Statement of accused — Allegation of animosity against Investigating Officer — Evidentiary value — Accused in his statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C. alleged that police had falsely implicated him due to a financial dispute over unpaid food services — Allegations went unrefuted by prosecution — Held, once accused pleads prejudice, it is incumbent upon prosecution to dispel that apprehension through fair and transparent investigation — Failure to do so entitles accused to benefit of doubt. Final Disposition: Petition converted to appeal and allowed. Conviction and sentence under S. 9(c), CNSA, 1997 set aside. Accused acquitted and ordered to be released if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ---- S. 9(c) — Possession with intent to sell—Benefit of doubt—Scope Petitioner was convicted under S. 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997 for alleged possession of 2.36 kg charas—Recovery was made from an open, visible location adjacent to a canal in broad daylight, yet no attempt to flee or dispose of narcotics was attributed to the petitioner—Court held such circumstances to be inherently improbable and contrary to natural conduct—Prosecution's version failed to inspire confidence—Conviction was reversed and petitioner acquitted. Cited as binding: Legal principle reaffirmed that prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (b) Criminal trial ---- Benefit of doubt—Right of accused—Standard of proof Held, benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused not as matter of grace but of right—Where contradictions or improbabilities exist in the prosecution’s version, and the defence narrative appears reasonably probable, the accused is entitled to acquittal—Doubts must not be speculative but must arise from evidence on record—Prosecution failed to rebut defence with credible explanation. Ref: Standard principle reaffirmed. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ---- Call Data Records (CDRs)—Rebuttal of ocular evidence—Location evidence of prosecution witnesses Call Data Records (CDRs) revealed that police officials who allegedly conducted the raid were located far from the scene at the material time—Prosecution failed to rebut CDRs through documentary proof such as mobile swap logs or explanation of device use—Denials by witnesses without corroboration held insufficient—CDRs accepted as credible rebuttal evidence against prosecution's claim. Legal principle: Electronic evidence may validly contradict ocular testimony if not properly refuted. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 342—Plea of false implication—Prior animus by police Petitioner stated she was arrested a day earlier, falsely implicated after refusing to pay bribe—Reference made to prior FIR against petitioner in same police station under similar charges—Allegation of misappropriation of gold ornaments by police in earlier case corroborated by prosecution’s own witnesses in that matter—Held, consistent defence version, combined with demonstrated police misconduct, gave rise to reasonable doubt as to prosecution’s bonafides—Benefit of doubt extended. Cited evidence: Testimony of PW-4 and Lady Constable Sajida Kausar in FIR No. 1045/2020. (e) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ---- Delay in sending samples—Effect on prosecution case Samples of seized contraband were sent for chemical analysis after an unexplained delay of 4 days—Held, inordinate delay without justification undermines integrity of samples and raises serious doubt about tampering or contamination—Such delay found fatal to prosecution’s case in narcotics matters. Ref: Delay held sufficient to cast doubt on chain of custody and credibility of forensic evidence. (f) Narcotics law ---- Recovery proceedings—Gaps in documentary evidence—Impact on reliability No weighing equipment, packing materials, slips, or sale-related paraphernalia recovered—No customer apprehended or produced as witness—Site plan silent regarding police party’s position, witnesses to recovery, or presence of any buyers—Held, procedural irregularities and documentary omissions rendered prosecution’s recovery evidence unreliable and untrustworthy. Principle: Recovery evidence must meet high threshold of procedural and evidentiary sanctity under narcotics law. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Conviction and sentence under S. 9(c), CNSA 1997, set aside—Petitioner acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Summary: (On appeal against the judgment dated 24.02.2020 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 800-P of 2017). (a) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond the shadow of any slightest doubt and the benefit of even a slightest doubt is to be extended to the accused. 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)---Possession of narcotic substance---Re-appraisal of evidence---Safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered substance to the laboratory not proved---Chain of custody of contraband doubtful---Prosecution case was that 20-kilogram charas was recovered from the vehicle driven by the accused---Complainant stated that after completing the recovery proceedings, he took both the appellants, contraband, along with parcels and the vehicle to the police station and handed over the same to Moharrar---Said Moharrar stated that complainant handed over to him sample parcels total 1640 in number and 5/5 grams charas (samples) for onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory and 82 sacks of case property for safe custody in the Mallkhana of the police station---Said witness also stated that he sent 1640 parcels weighing 5 grams each to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with application to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis through Police Constable---However, the said Police Constable through whom 1640 samples of the contraband material were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory had not been produced in the witness box by the prosecution---No valid reason had been given before the Trial Court for non-production of the said witness in the witness box---Name of the said Police Constable had also not been mentioned in the calendar of witnesses in report under Section 173,Cr.P.C.---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory depicted that the name of the person who deposited the sample parcels in the said office had not been mentioned therein and only No. 5915 had been mentioned---Head Constable, while appearing in the witness box before the trial Court, stated that he took Murasila, the recovery memo, the card of arrest, application for Forensic Science Laboratory along with parcels to the police station and handed over the same to Police Officer/ASI---However, upon perusal of the deposition of Police Officer/ASI, said witness did not make any mention of receipt of the said parcels of charasand only mentioned receipt of the Murasila sent by complainant---However, as per the deposition of complainant, the said samples were handed over to Moharrar for onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Such ambiguity as to who was handed over the samples parcels of the charas raised serious doubts regarding the chain of custody of the contraband material by the prosecution and the genuineness of the prosecution story, the benefit of which ambiguities and doubts was to be extended to the appellants as a matter of right---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Abdul Haq v. The State 2025 SCMR 751; Javaid Iqbal v. The State 2023 SCMR 139; Asif Ali and another v. The State 2024 SCMR 1408; Lal Jan v. The State 2023 SCMR 1009; Said Wazir v. The State 2023 SCMR 1144; Nawaz v. State 2020 SCMR 687; State v. Imam Bakhsh 2018 SCMR 2039; Zahir Shah v. State 2019 SCMR 2004; Amjad Ali v. State 2012 SCMR 577 and Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State 2021 SCMR 451 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance, which creates doubt in the prosecution case, the same will be sufficient to acquit the accused. Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Syed Kosar Ali Shah, Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and assisted by Ghulam Muhammad Adnan, Judicial Law Clerk for the State. Date of hearing: 26th May, 2025.