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.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 26.06.2023 (19.07.2023) passed by the High Court of Balochistan Quetta in Cr. Appeal. No. 250 of 2023). Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---Safe custody of narcotic and transmission of samples to the laboratory doubtful---Prosecution case was that 1800-grams Methamphetamine (ice) was recovered from the possession of accused---Testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses revealed material gaps and contradictions regarding the safe custody and transmission of the recovered substance from the spot to the Police Station and then samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Police Official, who allegedly conveyed the mirasila and case property to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR was registered, was neither cited nor examined as a witness---Non-production of said Police Official was a serious blow to the prosecution's case as in absence of his statement, there was no other evidence to prove safe transmission of the cases property and samples from the spot to the Police Station---Seizing Officer/complainant did not mention in his statement or in his cross-examination the specific act of sending the narcotic to the Police Station or to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Moharrir, admitted that the parcels were handed over to him by the Investigating Officer without the issuance of any receipt and he did not produce Register No.19 on record---Investigating Officer failed to mention the name of the person through whom the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, although the Forensic Science Laboratory Report mentioned his own name---Moharrir also admitted not recording the statements of key persons under Section 161, Cr.P.C., and failed to exhibit any documentary trail evidencing a secure chain of custody of the samples from the spot to the Forensic Science Laboratory---In narcotics cases, due to the severity of punishment involved, the prosecution must establish an unbroken secure and reliable chain of custody of the recovered contraband from the point of seizure to its receipt at the Forensic Laboratory---Any lacuna or discrepancy in that regard rendered the entire process suspect and the report of the Chemical Examiner inadmissible or at the very least unreliable---In the case at hand, the prosecution had manifestly failed to discharge that burden---Unexplained and undocumented transmission of samples, non-examination of key witnesses, failure to produce chain-of-custody registers and contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses cumulatively casted a serious doubt on the integrity of the evidence---Consequently, the Chemical Examiner's report became unsafe to rely upon and could not be made the sole basis for conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. 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; Asif Ali and another v. The State 2024 SCMR 1408 and Abdul Ghani and others v. the State and others 2019 SCMR 608 rel. Mir Aurangzeb, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ms. Robina Butt, Advocate Supreme Court (State counsel Balochistan) for the State. Date of hearing: 24th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ----S. 9(c)––Possession of Methamphetamine (“Ice”)––Safe custody and transmission of narcotics—Chain of custody—Legal requirement and evidentiary implications Conviction of petitioner under S. 9(c), CNSA for alleged recovery of 1800 grams of Methamphetamine was set aside due to critical lapses in the prosecution’s case regarding chain of custody—Held, prosecution failed to prove safe and secure movement of recovered contraband from the point of recovery to the forensic laboratory—Key witness who transported case property to police station was neither cited nor examined—Seizing officer failed to mention delivery of narcotics to police station or FSL—No receipt issued by Moharrir; Register No.19 not produced—Investigating Officer failed to record statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. or document how samples reached the FSL—In absence of a complete, unbroken, and documented chain of custody, the chemical examiner’s report was rendered unsafe to rely upon. ➤ Followed: 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); Asif Ali and another v. The State (2024 SCMR 1408) (b) Criminal Trial—Chain of Custody—Legal Standard ----Burden of proof—Material discrepancies—Effect Held, in narcotics cases where punishments are severe, the prosecution is obligated to prove each link in the chain of custody with clear and corroborated evidence—Failure to cite, examine, or document persons in whose custody narcotics remained is fatal to the prosecution’s case—Unexplained gaps and contradictory witness statements create serious doubt in the integrity of evidence, requiring benefit of doubt to be extended to accused. ➤ Relied on: Abdul Ghani and others v. The State and others (PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C) 462) (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 161—Failure to record statements—Adverse inference Held, Investigating Officer’s failure to record or produce statements of material witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., including persons involved in transmitting the narcotics, indicated procedural lapses—Such omissions compromise the evidentiary value of prosecution’s case—Benefit must go to the accused. (d) Evidence Act, 1872 ----Principle—Benefit of doubt—Mandatory in case of prosecution failure Where prosecution fails to prove secure transmission and handling of narcotics, and evidence is riddled with inconsistencies, the law mandates that benefit of doubt be extended to the accused—Court reiterated the foundational principle that no one shall be convicted unless the prosecution’s case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Conviction and sentence under S. 9(c) CNSA set aside—Petitioner acquitted of the charge and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (Against the judgement dated 06.12.2018 passed by Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. D-90 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. D-87 of 2012). (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---Official witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Prosecution case was that 30 kilogram charas/hashish was recovered from the truck driven by accused "GK", while accused "MK" was seated on the front passenger seat---Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life---Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed---Validity---Official witnesses were competent witnesses unless mala fide, enmity, or ulterior motive is convincingly established on the record, which, in the present case, was conspicuously absent---In fact, it had emerged on record that all the prosecution witnesses belonged to the Excise Department, whereas the accused persons were from another province and there existed no past animosity between them that may give rise to suspicion of false implication---Petition of petitioner "GK" for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. Nazir Ahmed v. The State 2023 SCMR 1299 rel. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---Presumption of knowledge and constructive possession of contraband---Scope---Prosecution case was that 30 kilogram charas/hashish was recovered from the truck driven by accused "GK", while accused "MK" was seated in the front passenger seat---Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life---Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed---Validity---Record showed that the intercepted truck was under the control and custody of the driver, petitioner "GK", which legally amounted to his constructive possession of the narcotic recovered from the vehicle---In such circumstances, the driver was deemed responsible for the contraband found in the vehicle under his charge and it was presumed that he had knowledge of its presence---When the petitioner, "GK", was signaled to stop the vehicle, he instead accelerated, which was a clear indication of his intent to flee---Such action of speeding up in response to a police signal, strongly suggested that the petitioner "GK" had something to hide---Situation became even more telling when, upon searching the vehicle, narcotic was uncovered from secret compartments within the truck's cabin body---Petitioner "GK" not only had knowledge of the contraband but was in clear constructive possession of the contraband narcotic---In that regard, the petitioner "GK" had been rightly found guilty of committing an offence falling within the ambit of Sections 6 and 7 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and punishable under Section 9(c) of the said Act---Petition of petitioner "GK" for leave was dismissed accordingly. State v. Wallace 372 Md. 137, 812 A.2d 291 2002 and Kashif Ameer v. The State PLD 2010 SC 1052 rel. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---Person seated in front passenger seat---Not aware of presence of narcotics in the vehicle---Prosecution case was that 30 kilogram charas/hashish was recovered from the truck driven by accused "GK", while accused "MK" was seated in the front passenger seat---Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life---Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed---Validity---As per record, petitioner "MK" was sitting on front seat at the time of interception---As such, attributing the illicit narcotics found in the vehicle to petitioner "MK" could not be justified in the absence of any evidence linking him to the possession or control of the vehicle, as prosecution failed to provide evidence that he was aware of the narcotic in the vehicle---Since petitioner "MK" lacked a possessory right in or control over the vehicle, and it could not be inferred that he had knowledge of the narcotic---Thus, petitioner "MK" was neither conscious nor aware of the narcotic present in the vehicle---Supreme Court found no reasonable grounds to uphold his conviction---Petit ion of petitioner, "MK", was converted into appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and he was acquitted of the charge. Shahzada v. State 2010 SCMR 841 rel. Burhan Latif Khaisori, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Assisted by: Ms. Tayyaba Munir, Law Clerk. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – Ss. 6, 7, 9(c); Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Art. 122 —Narcotics—Constructive possession—Driver—Presumption of knowledge—Liability for contraband concealed in vehicle Petitioner Ghazi Khan, driver of a truck intercepted during excise police surveillance, was found transporting 30kg of charas concealed in hidden compartments along with heavy illegal arms and explosives. Supreme Court held that a driver has constructive possession and presumed knowledge of contraband in a vehicle under his control. Accused failed to rebut presumption or offer plausible explanation. The act of attempting to flee further affirmed guilty knowledge. Conviction under S. 9(c), CNSA upheld. Cited Cases: • Kashif Ameer v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 1052) • Nazir Ahmed v. The State (2023 SCMR 1299) (b) Evidence—Credibility of official witnesses—Presumption of truth—Absence of animosity Testimony of Excise Police deemed reliable where no mala fide or enmity shown. Accused from different province; no past hostility proved. Held, official witnesses competent and credible absent proven bias. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – S. 9(c); Presumption and burden of proof—Passenger in vehicle—Lack of knowledge or control—Benefit of doubt Petitioner Marzak Khan was seated in passenger seat at time of interception. No evidence linked him to contraband or proved knowledge of hidden narcotics. Held, mere presence in vehicle not sufficient for conviction without possessory control or conscious knowledge. Conviction set aside; petitioner acquitted. Cited Case: • Shahzada v. The State (2010 SCMR 841) (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Ss. 397, 382-B —Concurrent sentences—Same transaction—Benefit of sentence computation Where multiple convictions arise from same transaction, sentences to run concurrently under S. 397 Cr.P.C. Petitioner Ghazi Khan granted benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. Cited Case: • Shaista Bibi v. Superintendent Central Jail Mach (PLD 2015 SC 15) ----- Disposition: Petition of Ghazi Khan dismissed—Conviction and sentence upheld; leave refused—Sentences to run concurrently; S. 382-B benefit granted Petition of Marzak Khan converted to appeal and allowed—Acquitted of charges and released forthwith

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 --- S. 9(c) --- Recovery of narcotics --- Chain of custody --- Safe custody and transmission of case property --- Evidentiary value of chemical examiner’s report --- Prosecution’s burden --- Standard of proof --- Legal requirement for conviction under S. 9(c). For conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered material was in fact a narcotic substance. This burden includes proof of safe custody and unbroken transmission of the recovered substance from the moment of recovery until its analysis by the chemical examiner. Failure to establish the integrity of this chain renders the chemical report unreliable and inadmissible for conviction. In the present case, there was no unimpeachable evidence regarding the custody of the eight sealed bags between 13.03.2017 and 22.03.2017, nor regarding the identity and role of the person who transmitted them. Thus, the report of the chemical examiner lost its evidentiary value. Cited Cases: Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380) Kashif Amir v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 1052) Muhammad Noor v. The State (2010 SCMR 927) The State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) Amjad Ali v. The State (2012 SCMR 577) Ikramullah v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002) Zahir Shah v. The State (2019 SCMR 2004) (b) Criminal trial --- Duty of trial court --- Powers under S. 540, Cr.P.C. --- Summoning of material witnesses --- Obligation to ensure just decision --- Discretionary and mandatory powers distinguished. Under section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a trial court has wide discretionary powers to summon any person as a witness at any stage of trial, and in certain situations, is under a mandatory duty to do so when evidence is essential for a just decision. The trial court in the present case failed to summon material witnesses connected with safe custody and transmission of narcotics, despite the prosecution’s omission. The court’s failure to exercise its powers under section 540, Cr.P.C., amounted to a miscarriage of justice and deprived itself of the means to reach a just conclusion. Cited Cases: Nawabzada Shah Zain Bugti v. The State (PLD 2013 SC 160) Shahbaz Masih v. The State (2007 SCMR 1631) Sajid Mehmood v. The State (2022 SCMR 1882) Ishaq v. The State (2022 SCMR 1422) Mst. Razia Sultana v. The State (2019 SCMR 1300) Abdul Salam v. The State (2000 SCMR 102) Muhammad Murad Abro v. The State (2004 SCMR 966) Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah v. The State (1993 SCMR 550) Painda Gul v. The State (1987 SCMR 886) (c) Criminal prosecution --- Prosecutorial misconduct --- Failure to produce material witnesses --- Recklessness or complicity --- Role of prosecutors and investigation officers --- Directions issued. The failure to produce witnesses involved in the custody and transmission of narcotics was not a mere inadvertent lapse but indicative of recklessness, or possibly complicity. Despite clear legal standards, the prosecution did not act diligently. The judgment emphasizes that this systemic failure contributes to frequent acquittals in narcotics cases and undermines the purpose of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The Court called upon the Government of Sindh and Prosecutor General to take corrective action, including issuing guidelines under S. 9-A(1) of the Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2009. (d) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 --- Art. 175(2) --- Judicial responsibility --- Duty of trial courts to actively manage trials --- Passive conduct deprecated. The trial court’s passive conduct in failing to summon necessary witnesses or reject the prosecution’s request to give up material witnesses demonstrated a neglect of its duty to reach a just and informed verdict. The court was reminded that it is not to act as a “timorous soul” and must utilize all legal powers to unearth the truth and ensure justice, particularly in serious offences involving narcotics. (e) Public accountability --- Role of State and law enforcement agencies --- Failure to control narcotics menace --- Need for reform. The judgment highlighted systemic failure by law enforcement agencies, which often limit their actions to arresting carriers from underprivileged backgrounds and fail to dismantle wider criminal networks. The Federal and Provincial Governments, as well as the judiciary, were urged to take responsibility and improve the quality of prosecution and trial processes to ensure meaningful deterrence and accountability in narcotics-related offences. Disposition: Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted. They were ordered to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (as adapted by AJK Act, 2001) ----S. 9(c), read with S. 29---Recovery of Charas weighing 1080 grams from exclusive possession---Presumption and burden of proof---Once lawful recovery and possession are established through cogent evidence, the statutory presumption under S. 29 is attracted and the onus shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for possession---Held, prosecution successfully proved recovery and safe custody; defence failed to rebut the presumption or create reasonable doubt. (b) Criminal trial---Chain of custody---Forensic report---Evidentiary value---Safe transmission of sealed sample (60 grams) to FSL proved through consistent testimonies of the carrier (Waqar Ahmed, P.W-5) and Moharrar (P.W-6), contemporaneous entries, and receipt at FSL the same day---Minor variation in outer packaging described by FSL (khaki envelope/polythene) vis-à-vis initial sealing in white cloth---Held, such discrepancy, in the face of otherwise unbroken chain, does not vitiate the prosecution case; at best, it is a mitigating circumstance for sentence. (c) Evidence Act (general principles)---Minor discrepancies---Place of occurrence described as “F.W.O. Turn” and “near Revenue Complex”---Whether material---Held, not material where locations are proximate and witnesses are otherwise consistent on core facts (interception, recovery, weights, sealing, dispatch); hyper-technical approach deprecated. (d) Criminal trial---Ocular account---Number and quality of witnesses---Seven prosecution witnesses, including recovery and transmitting witnesses, supported each other on material particulars; defence statement on oath under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. and two defence witnesses failed to dent the prosecution’s consistent narrative---Held, conviction sustainable. (e) Sentencing---Mitigating circumstance---Packaging discrepancy in the sample noted; while not fatal to conviction, it warrants some leniency---Sentence under S. 9(c) reduced from six years’ S.I. to five years’ S.I., fine of Rs. 40,000 maintained; in default, five months’ S.I. Cited cases: • Khursheed Hussain Shah v. The State (2022 SCR 334) (minor contradictions not fatal). • 2021 P.Cr.L.J. 1294 and 2012 YLR 126 (distinguished on facts). Disposition: ---Appeal partly allowed; conviction maintained; sentence modified to five years’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 40,000 and five months’ S.I. in default.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 –– S. 9(c), S. 29 –– Possession of Narcotics –– Conviction Maintained –– Previous Conviction Not Pleaded in Charge: ––Recovery of 1455 grams heroin from accused's possession––Convicted by Trial Court under S. 9(c), CNSA and sentenced to 10 years R.I. with Rs.125,000 fine––Appellant challenged conviction on various grounds including delay in FIR, insufficient sample (1 gram), contradictions in evidence, delay in sending sample, lack of independent witnesses, and non-production of vehicle––High Court held all legal requirements for possession, search, seizure, custody, and transmission were satisfied––Sample analyzed without objection from forensic lab––Delay in dispatch held directory, not fatal––Contradictions deemed minor and explained by time lapse––Police witnesses deemed trustworthy per precedent––Appellant failed to rebut presumption under S. 29 CNSA or offer explanation for possession––Conviction and sentence upheld––Trial Court erred in not framing charge under proviso to S. 9 due to accused's previous convictions––However, omission not sufficient to vitiate trial outcome. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B –– Sentence Credit –– Previous Convictions –– Prosecutorial Negligence: ––Benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. extended––Court expressed concern that despite previous convictions of accused in FIR Nos. 47/2016 and 254/2015 (under S. 9-B, CNSA), prosecution failed to disclose same during trial––Neither charge framed under proviso to S. 9, CNSA nor reflected in challan––Held, failure to frame appropriate charge and prosecutorial oversight noted with disapproval––Copy of judgment directed to be sent to Prosecutor General, Islamabad to ensure corrective measures in future––Reliance placed on judicial precedent confirming credibility of police witnesses and validity of recovery without private witnesses (2023 SCMR 1669, Zain Ali v. The State; 2011 SCMR 624, Gul Alam v. The State). (c) Narcotic Cases –– Sample Quantity –– Delay in Dispatch –– Legal Standards: ––One-gram sample for chemical analysis held sufficient––No objection raised by forensic lab––Delay in sending sample beyond 72 hours held non-fatal––Requirement under Rule 4 of Government Analysts Rules, 2001 treated as directory––Court reiterated that failure to send sample within prescribed time does not nullify trial in absence of tampering or prejudice––Judicial standards for narcotic trials upheld where evidence chain remains intact, and seizure made by officer not below Sub-Inspector. ----Disposition: Appeals dismissed––Conviction and sentence under S. 9(c) CNSA maintained––Trial Court’s failure to frame charge under proviso noted, but not fatal––Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. granted––Prosecutor General Islamabad directed to ensure due diligence in future prosecutions involving previous convicts. ----Cited Cases: • Zain Ali v. The State, 2023 SCMR 1669 • Gul Alam v. The State, 2011 SCMR 624 "Section 48 appeal against sentence & conviction in FIR No. 906/2022 dated 02.11.2022 U/s 9(1) 6C CNSA P.S. Bara Kahu, Islamabad"

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ––S. 9(c), S. 29 –– Possession –– Charas –– Burden of Proof –– Conviction Modified ––Recovery of 21.025 kg of Charas from vehicle intercepted near Motorway Toll Plaza, Islamabad––Trial Court convicted appellant under S. 9(c) CNSA and sentenced him to life imprisonment––Appellate Court observed serious discrepancies in prosecution evidence regarding safe custody and transmission of samples––Laboratory reports (Ex.PH, Ex.PK, Ex.PL) showed that Constable Imran Ahmed deposited samples, whereas prosecution produced Head Constable Adnan Ali as depositor (PW-2)––Discrepancy held material, as Constable Imran Ahmed was not produced as a witness, nor mentioned in evidence chain––Only Ex.PJ correctly identified Adnan Ali as depositor––Held, prosecution proved recovery and chemical analysis of 5 out of 20 sample parcels, establishing possession of 5 kg Charas––Remaining 15 packets unproven due to broken chain of custody––Conviction under S. 9(c) CNSA modified––Appellant sentenced to 7 years and 6 months R.I., Rs. 35,000/- fine, and 6 months S.I. in default––Benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. extended. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B –– Sentence Reduction –– Chain of Custody –– Investigation Irregularities: ––Appellant contended that investigation was conducted entirely by CIA staff without requisite permission––Court found that permission had been sought on day after FIR via Ex.PG, and verbal intimation noted in Complaint and FIR––Objection overruled––Further objection that seal on case property not legible due to passage of time also dismissed––Court noted that delay of nearly two years between sealing and trial testimony explains fading of seal––Vehicle not exhibited at trial due to superdari fraud by surety––Held, non-exhibition of vehicle immaterial as narcotics were recovered from bag on floor, not hidden compartments––Presumption under S. 29 CNSA applies unless rebutted––Appellant failed to discharge burden––Nonetheless, prosecution’s failure to account for chain of custody in 15 out of 20 samples vitiated life sentence. (c) Chain of Custody –– Evidentiary Deficiency –– Benefit to Accused: ––Court emphasized importance of strict compliance with protocols in narcotics cases––Where chain of custody is broken or unexplained, benefit of doubt must go to accused––Reliance placed on Abdul Ghani v. The State, 2019 SCMR 608; Qaisar Khan v. The State, 2021 SCMR 363; Shah Zameen v. The State, 2022 SCMR 2149; Lal Jan v. The State, 2023 SCMR 1009––Failure to produce material witness (Imran Ahmed) and conflicting evidence on who deposited sample parcels held fatal to prosecution’s case for full quantity––Only evidence relating to five samples (as per Ex.PJ) found reliable. ----Disposition: Appeals partially allowed––Conviction under S. 9(c) CNSA maintained for 5 kg Charas––Sentence reduced to 7 years and 6 months R.I. with Rs. 35,000/- fine––Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. extended––Default of fine to result in 6 months S.I. Cited Cases: • The State v. Bashir, PLD 1997 SC 408 • Muhammad Afzal v. The State, PLD 2000 SC 816 • Abdul Ghani v. The State, 2019 SCMR 608 • Qaisar Khan v. The State, 2021 SCMR 363 • Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State, 2021 SCMR 451 • Shah Zameen v. The State, 2022 SCMR 2149 • Lal Jan v. The State, 2023 SCMR 1009 • Muhammad Hazir v. The State, 2023 SCMR 986 • Asif Ullah v. The State, 2023 YLR 966 • Agha Qais v. The State, 2009 PCr.LJ 1334 • Ashiq alias Kaloo v. The State, 1989 PCr.LJ 601 "Section 48 Appeal Against sentence by conviction. FIR No. 754-2020 dated 07.12.2020 Offence U/s 9-C CNSA, PS Tarnol, Islamabad."

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: –––S. 9(c)–––Conviction–––Appreciation of evidence–––Contradiction in prosecution version regarding recovery–––Appellant was convicted for possession of 8 kg Heroin, whereas co-accused was acquitted–––Contradiction between FIR/complaint and recovery memo regarding the location and manner of recovery–––Recovery memo (Ex.PC) stated all 8 packets recovered from trunk of vehicle driven by appellant; whereas FIR and complaint (Ex.PA & Ex.PB) stated 2 packets were recovered from co-accused’s clothing–––Such material inconsistency casts serious doubt on the entire recovery–––Prosecution failed to establish safe custody of narcotics or to associate any private witnesses in the recovery, despite availability–––Investigating Officer was dismissed from service for misconduct, further undermining credibility of investigation–––Held, in narcotics cases, utmost transparency in recovery and chain of custody is essential–––Benefit of doubt given to accused–––Appeal allowed–––Conviction and sentence set aside–––Appellant acquitted. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Samiullah v. The State, 2022 SCMR 998 • Khial Muhammad v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1490 • Muhammad Riaz v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1839 • Subha Sadiq v. The State, 2025 SCMR 50 (b) Criminal trial: –––Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus–––Applicability–––Contradictory prosecution evidence–––When statements of prosecution witnesses contain major discrepancies regarding material facts, entire testimony becomes unreliable–––In the instant case, serious divergence existed between the initial complaint and recovery memo as to from whom and where the contraband was allegedly recovered–––Held, once key parts of the prosecution narrative are proven false, the rest cannot be safely relied upon–––Principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” applied–––Accused entitled to acquittal. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––Ss. 103, 157, 342 & 382-B–––Non-association of private witnesses–––Lack of spot investigation–––Statements of accused–––Section 103 Cr.P.C. not complied with–––No credible explanation given for non-inclusion of public witnesses at the time of search and recovery–––Section 157(1), Cr.P.C. mandates spot-based investigation, which appeared missing in the case–––Benefit of doubt arising from violation of legal procedure extended to accused–––Further, Appellant’s statement under S.342 Cr.P.C. was not properly rebutted–––Acquittal upheld. (d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: –––S. 32–––Confiscation of vehicle–––Notice to owner–––Failure to comply with mandatory procedure–––Vehicle used in commission of offence was ordered to be confiscated by Trial Court without serving notice to registered owner or verifying ownership–––Held, forfeiture without notice violates mandatory requirements of S.32 CNSA–––Court directed that vehicle shall remain intact until expiry of limitation for appeal or revision, and may only be disposed of in accordance with law after proper notice and determination of ownership.