05/09/2026
2026 YLR P.1515( بہت اہم ججمنٹ)
سندھ ہائی کورٹ کے لاڑکانہ بنچ نے منشیات مقدمہ میں گاڑی کے ڈرائیور اور فرنٹ سیٹرکو #200پیکٹ چرس سفید GLI گاڑی کے #خفیہ خانوں میں 200کلوگرام برآمدگی میں #سزا کالعدم کرتے ہوئے #ملزمان کو #بری کرتے ہوئے قرار دیا ہے کہ *SSP اور تفتیشی افسران کی ذمہ داریوں* کے بارے میں ہے۔ خاص طور پر *Narcotics / CNS کیسز* میں۔
SSP
کی 3 لازمی ذمہ داریاں - جب چالان کورٹ جائے
ہر 173 CrPC کی رپورٹ پر SSP کو لازمی کرنا ہے:
Scrutinize*: چیک کرے کہ ثبوت چارج کو سپورٹ کرتے ہیں یا نہیں
*Due Process*: چیک کرے کہ تفتیش قانون کے مطابق ہوئی ہے یا نہیں
Written Opinion*: ہر چالان پر تحری رائے دے کر Sign کرے
*اگر کمی ہو تو SSP کے پاس 3 اختیار ہیں:*
1. مزید تفتیش کا حکم
2. خامی دور کرنے کا حکم
3. کیس واپس تفتیش کے لیے بھیجنا
SSP
کی نگرانی والی ڈیوٹی - Rule 25.17 Police Rules 1934*
Running Notebook*:
ہر تھانے کے لیے الگ رجسٹر رکھے۔ تاخیر نوٹ کرے۔
Site Visit
اہم کیسز میں موقع پر خود جائے۔
*Challan Review*: پراسیکیوٹر اور I.O سے مشاورت کرے۔
Acquittal کی وجہ*: ہر بریت کی وجہ معلوم کرے۔ اگر I.O کی غلطی ہو تو *محکمانہ + فوجداری کارروائی* کرے۔
عدالت نے کہا: *SSP کو "Post Office" سمجھنا غلط ہے*۔ وہ نگران ہے۔
Narcotics
کیسز میں "Chain of Safe Custody" کے 7 لازمی Steps*
یہ فیصلہ بار بار یہی کہہ رہا ہے۔ اگر یہ نہ ہوئے تو بریت پکی ہے:
Spot Recovery*: ریکوری میمو موقع پر بنے۔ ویڈیو/تصویر بنے۔ 2018 SCMR 1233
*Sealing*: سیمپل اور مال پر موم کی مہر + لیبل۔ نام، کیس نمبر، تاریخ، وزن لکھیں
*Register 2*: تھانے سے نکلنے اور آنے کی انٹری لازمی
Register 19*: مال خانہ میں جمع اور نکلنے کی انٹری لازمی
Road Certificate*: سیمپل لیب بھیجتے وقت Register 21 کا RC بنے
*گواہ پیش کرنا*: مہرار، PC جس نے سیمپل بھیجا، I.O سب کو 161 میں بیان اور ٹرائل میں گواہ بنائیں
SSP کی چیکنگ*: چالان بھیجنے سے پہلے SSP خود Chain چیک کرے
*عدالت کی سب سے سخت ہدایت*
Jeehand v State 2021*: تفتیش صرف "پیڈلر" تک نہ رہے۔ پیسے کا سراغ، Asset Trace، پورا نیٹ ورک پکڑیں۔ ANF کو Monitoring Unit بنانے کا حکم۔
*Ehsanullah Chadhry PLD 2023*: Cancellation Report صرف *SSP خود* مجسٹریٹ کو بھیجے گا۔ SHO یا DSP نہیں بھیج سکتا۔
عدالت نے IGP Sindh کو حکم دیا:
1. ویب بیسڈ سسٹم بنائیں
2. اگر بریت ہو تو *SSP, SHO, I.O اور گواہ* کے خلاف کارروائی ہو
اگر آپ *I.O ہیں* تو چالان بھیجنے سے پہلے یہ Checklist مکمل کریں ورنہ SSP واپس کر دے گا۔
JUDGMENT
AMJAD ALI SAHITO- J:- Through this criminal appeal, the appellants Naveed-ul-Rehman and Samiullah have impugned the judgment dated 17.9.2020 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Kamber, in Special Case No. 05 of 2020 re: State v. Naveed-ul Rehman and another arisen out of Crime No. 96/2019 registered at P.S Qubo Saeed Khan under section 9(c) of CNS Act, 1997 whereby both appellants were convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- each, and in default of payment, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ten years.
* Briefly, the prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR lodged on 18.12.2019 at about 1730 hours, that on 18.12.2019 SIP Attaullah Mirani, Incharge P.S Qubo Saeed Khan a/w his subordinate staff while patrolling received spy information regarding transportation of charas by two persons in a white GLI car through PP Rabi Pul to Shahdadkot Road, on which they reached at the pointed place, started checking and at about 1500 hours stopped the pointed car and apprehended the present appellants at PP Rabi Pul. PC Nisar Ahmed Brohi and Pc Shahid Hussain Mahessar were associated as mashirs and on checking allegedly 200 kg charas, in shape of 200 packets were recovered, which were hidden in secret cavities of white GLI car (Reg. No. BHX-331). Each packet weighed one K.G and out of them 100 packets were white-yellow colour while 100 packets were black and red colour. Each packet contained two pieces. 100/100 grams were separated from each packet and sealed separately for sample. On personal search of accused certain cash, CNIC and original documents of car were recovered. After preparation of memo of arrest and recovery accused alongwith case property were brought at P.S and FIR was lodged to the above effect.
* After registration of FIR the investigation followed in which complainant/author of FIR himself acted as I.O also and accused/appellants were sent up to stand trial before competent Court.
* Formal charge against the accused was framed at Exh.03, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial vide their pleas at Exh.3/A to 3-B.
* The prosecution examined two witnesses viz. PW-1 SIP Attaullah Mirani (Complainant and Investigating Officer) and PW-2 PC Nisar Ahmed Brohi (Mashir/Eye witness). Thereafter, prosecution side was closed.
* Statements of accused under section 342 Cr.P.C, were recorded in which they denied the allegations but neither opted to depose under section 340(2) Cr.P.C nor led any defense evidence.
* On conclusion of trial, and after hearing both parties, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants under impugned judgment dated 17.9.2020, as stated above which is challenged by appellants in this appeal.
* Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the entire prosecution case is predicated solely upon the testimony of two official witnesses, namely the complainant who also acted as the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and PW-2, PC Nisar Ahmed Brohi, who acted as the Mashir and purported eyewitness. It was argued that there was a complete absence of any independent mashir or corroborative witness, despite the alleged recovery having been effected in broad daylight on a public road. The dual role assumed by the complainant, acting both as the complainant and the I.O., was submitted to be a serious irregularity that compromises the impartiality and credibility of the investigation.
* Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the case property and the secure transmission of the sealed samples to the Chemical Examiner, as neither the in-charge of the Malkhana nor the official responsible for conveying the samples to the Chemical Examiner were examined. This lapse, it was argued, casts grave doubt on the integrity of the chain of custody and the veracity of the prosecution's narrative an omission fatal to the case. No private person was joined as a mashir, notwithstanding the fact that the alleged arrest took place on a busy thoroughfare.
* The learned counsel further submitted that although a positive Chemical Examiner's report (Exh.09) was placed on record, no independent evidence was produced to corroborate the report or to establish the maintenance of safe custody and an unbroken chain of custody of the contraband. The absence of examination of the Malkhana in-charge and the official who delivered the sample to the Chemical Examiner renders the said report unreliable. It is a settled principle of law that in cases attracting capital punishment or life imprisonment, strict compliance with procedural safeguards, particularly relating to the safe custody and preservation of seized contraband is mandatory. In the present case, it was alleged that 200 kilograms of narcotics were recovered in the form of 200 packets, each containing one kilograms, and that 100 grams from each packet were allegedly taken and sealed at the scene. However, PW-2 testified that the large parcels were, in fact, prepared at the police station, thereby raising serious doubts about the authenticity of the recovery proceedings.
* It was further submitted that the co-mashir of the recovery memo was not produced, which is a mandatory requirement as per the judgment reported in 2011 YLR 2261. Additionally, PW-2, PC Nisar Ahmed, sign his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and this serious omission remained unnoticed by the learned trial court. As held in PLD 2011 SC 554, such a statement is legally unreliable. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the case suffers from significant investigative defects. Notably, the owner of the vehicle allegedly used in the transportation of the contraband was not associated with the investigation. Furthermore, the case property was recorded as weighing 200 kilograms even after the drawing of samples, which raises serious concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the weight and handling of the contraband.
* The contraband in question was never exhibited or marked as an article in evidence, which constitutes a grave illegality. It was further argued that the Chemical Examiner's report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence, as it does not comply with Rule 6 of the CNS (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, compliance of which has been held to be mandatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2018 SCMR 2039.
* In view of the above deficiencies, learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside, with the appellants being entitled to acquittal.
* Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General supported the impugned judgment, asserting that the appellants were apprehended at the scene while transporting a substantial quantity of contraband, namely 200 kilograms of charas, which was found concealed within secret cavities of a vehicle driven by the appellants. The learned D.P.G. argued that such a significant recovery could not have been foisted by the police, especially in the absence of any prior enmity or motive for false implication. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.
* We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material brought on record.
* The prosecution's case is that on 18.12.2019, acting on a tip-off, the appellants were apprehended, and 200 packets of charas were recovered from concealed compartments of a vehicle driven by appellant Naveed-ul-Rehman, while appellant Samiullah was seated in the rear seat of said vehicle. The seized contraband was weighed and found to be 200 kilograms in total. A sample of 100 grams from each packet was separated for chemical analysis, and the remaining quantity was sealed at the spot in accordance with legal procedure.
* Upon reassessment of the evidence and record, it has been observed that prosecution witness No. 1 (PW-1), SIP Attaullah, who is also the investigating officer of the case, provided testimony regarding the recovery of the narcotics (charas) and outlined the investigatory measures undertaken by him. Following the arrest of the appellants, both the accused persons and the recovered contraband were brought to the concerned police station. The seized charas was placed in secure custody within the police station's malkhana, and relevant entries were duly recorded during the course of the investigation. On the following day, i.e., 19.12.2019, the recovered charas was dispatched to the Chemical Laboratory, Sukkur at Rohri, through police constable No. 1714 Kaleemullah, vide RC No. 215 dated 19.12.2019. A chemical examination report was subsequently received in positive. Consequently, the investigating officer submitted a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Challan) against both accused persons before the court of competent jurisdiction. The investigating officer also produced supporting documents marked as Exhibits 4/A to 4/G.
* In corroboration of the testimony of PW-1, the prosecution examined PW-2 Nisar Ahmed, who essentially reiterated the same facts and fully supported the version advanced by the complainant. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its side of the evidence through a statement dated 10.09.2020, recorded at Exhibit 06. The complainant further asserted that the recovered charas was forwarded to the Chemical Laboratory through PC Kaleemullah.
* It is pertinent to underscore that the evidentiary value of the Chemical Examiner's Report is inherently contingent upon the integrity of the chain of custody. It is the obligation of the prosecution to establish and maintain an unbroken and secure chain of custody, particularly in view of the pivotal role played by the Chemical Examiner's Report under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The only means by which the authenticity of the recovered substance's arrival at the Chemical Examiner's office can be ensured is through demonstrable proof of a safe and uninterrupted chain of custody.
* Upon examination of the record, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish that the recovered sample parcels (charas) were kept in secure custody at the police station (Malkhana). The prosecution did not produce the Moharar responsible for maintaining the MalKhana, which is a critical lapse. During cross-examination, the complainant/investigating officer (I.O.) of the case conceded that "It is correct to suggest that after reaching the police station, the recovered charas was kept in safe custody in the Malkhana of the police station through the WHC, whose statement was also recorded by me. It is correct to suggest that the WHC has not been cited as a witness in the challan of this case."
* Furthermore, the prosecution failed to examine Police Constable Kaleemullah, who was reportedly responsible for the transportation of the case property to the office of the Chemical Examiner. As a result, the prosecution has not substantiated either the secure transmission of the sample parcel to the relevant laboratory or its safe custody while in the MalKhana. There is a conspicuous absence of any justification on record for the non-production of this essential evidence, despite the legal requirement for its establishment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in following precedents commencing from a judgment reported in 2012 and in several subsequent decisions, has consistently held that failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of recovered narcotics warrants the acquittal of the accused.
(1) Muhammad Hashim v. The State, PLD 2004 SC 856, (2) Amjad Ali v. The state, 2012 SCMR 577, (3) Ikramullah and others v. The State, 2015 SCMR 1002, (4) Taimoor Khan and another v. The State and another, 2016 SCMR 621, (5) The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others, 2018 SCMR 2039, (6) Mst. Razia Sultana v. The State and another, 2019 SCMR 1300, (7) Khair-ul-Bashar v. The State, 2019 SCMR 930, (8) Zahir Shah alias Shat v. The State, 2019 SCMR 2004, (9) Unreported Judgment dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Criminal Petition No.1187/2021 re-Jeehand v. The State, (10) Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The Sate, 2021 SCMR 451, (11) Qaiser Khan v. The State, 2021 SMR 363, (12) Abdul Ghafoor v. The State and another, 2022 SCMR 819, (13) Ishaq v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1422, (14) Muhammad Shoaib and another v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1006, (15) Subhanullah v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1052, (16) Rustam Ali v. The State, 2023 PCr.LJ Note 112, (17) Said Wazir and another v. The State, 2023 SCMR 1144, (18) Javed Iqbal v. The State, 2023 SCMR 139, (19) Muhammad Hazir v. The State, 2023 SCMR 986, (20) Asif Ali and another v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1408 and (21) Sarfraz Ahmed v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1571.
* It is a settled proposition of law that the prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt. If a reasonable doubt arises in the prosecution case, the benefit of same must be extended to the accused not as a grace or concession, but as a matter of right. Likewise, it is also a well-embedded principle of criminal justice that it is not necessary that there must be so many doubts in the prosecution case if there is a reasonable doubt arising out of the prosecution evidence pricking the judicious mind, the same would be considered sufficient for giving its benefit to the accused. In this respect, reliance can be placed upon the case of MOHAMMAD MANSHA V. THE STATE (2018 SCMR 772);-
> "4. Needless to mention that while giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. It is based on the maxim, "it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted." Reliance in this behalf can be made upon the cases of Tarique Parvez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Mohammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) and Mohammad Zaman v. The State (2014 SCMR 749)."
>
* In view of what has been discussed above the criminal appeals No.D-32 of 2020 filed by appellants Naveed-ul-Rehman and Samiullah is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17.09.2020 passed by learned First Additional Session Judge/MCT, Kambar at Kambar in Special Case No.05 of 2020 (State v. Naveed-ul-Rehman & others) being the outcome of Crime No. 96/2019 registered at P.S Qubo Saeed Khan under section 9 (C) of CNS, Act is set aside and appellants Naveed-ul-Rehman and Samiullah are acquitted of the charge by extending them benefit of the doubt. They are in jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other custody case.
* Before parting with this judgment, it is considered appropriate to identify the root causes contributing to the consistent failure of the prosecution in securing convictions in narcotics-related cases. A recurring issue observed is the flawed investigative process and deficient prosecutorial conduct, which routinely result in acquittals of drug traffickers. The primary and most significant reason for such acquittals is the prosecution's failure to establish the chain of safe custody, despite the apex Court of the country having elaborated and reiterated this critical concept in a series of authoritative judgments, as already discussed hereinabove.
* The maintenance of the chain of safe custody is a fundamental procedural requirement for the successful prosecution of an accused in narcotics cases. It is essential to satisfy the Court that the narcotic substance allegedly recovered from the accused is the same substance that was sent to the forensic/Chemical laboratory for analysis and subsequently produced before the trial court. This necessitates the continuous and documented possession of the case property by authorized personnel from the time of its recovery at the crime scene or from the accused, through its deposit in the designated storehouse (Malkhana), to the transmission of its samples to the laboratory, and finally, the presentation of the remaining bulk quantity before the trial court. This entire process is known in legal parlance as the "chain of safe custody."
* The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNS Act) prescribes stringent penal provisions for individuals involved in the possession, trafficking, and sale of narcotics. Despite the non-bailable nature of major offences under the Act, it has been consistently observed that offenders are frequently acquitted on technical grounds most notably, the prosecution's failure to establish the integrity of the chain of custody. Such acquittals, particularly in serious narcotics offences, not only undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system but also significantly hinder the national effort to eradicate the scourge of drug abuse and trafficking from society.
* The responsibility for maintaining the chain of safe custody lies squarely with the investigating agency, while the prosecution bears the duty of presenting such evidence in court. Both institutions must discharge their respective roles diligently and professionally to ensure the conviction of the accused. The Investigating Officer is legally obliged to collect all relevant evidence and forward it to the prosecution, which is responsible for producing the evidence in court in a manner that proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Any lapse in either the collection or proper presentation of evidence inevitably results in the failure of the prosecution's case. It has been observed that, in some instances, although the investigation report submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C., is complete and contains sufficient material to establish the chain of custody, the same is not effectively presented during trial proceedings. Accordingly, it is imperative that both investigating agencies and prosecuting authorities execute their duties with due diligence and professional competence, so as to fulfill the object and spirit of the law. The conviction of an accused cannot be achieved unless there is synergy and mutual reinforcement between the investigation and prosecution functions under the legal framework.
* Furthermore, it is necessary to dispel a common misconception regarding the role of the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP). The SSP's office is not to be viewed merely as a conduit for mechanically forwarding case files to the courts. Rather, it carries significant supervisory, administrative, and legal responsibilities in the conduct of criminal investigations and the enforcement of law in Pakistan.
The role of the Senior Superintendent of Police/Investegation (SSP) is defined the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC), the Police Rules, 1934, and various departmental standing orders.
* The SSP is duty-bound to exercise continuous oversight over all Investigating Officers ("IOs"), ensuring that investigations are completed expeditiously, in accordance with law, and in strict conformity with the procedures prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("CrPC") and the Police Rules, 1934. Before any case is forw
` `
` `
` `
` #انصاف `
