21/08/2026
سپریم کورٹ نے منشیات مقدمہ میں گاڑی کے خفیہ خانوں میں سے 175کلوگرام چرس برآمدگی میں گاڑی ڈرائیور ملزم کو شک کا فائدہ دیتے ہوئے سزا کالعدم کرتے ہوئے بری کرنے کا حکم دیتے ہوئے قرار دیا ہے کہ
*"5 دن نے عمر قید ختم کر دی: سپریم کورٹ نے 175 کلو چارس کیس میں ملزم بری کر دیا"*
*"چین آف کسٹڈی ٹوٹ گئی تو سزا بھی ٹوٹ گئی - کوئٹہ CNS کیس کا بڑا فیصلہ"*
*"ثبوت شک سے بالاتر نہیں تو سزا کیسے؟ سپریم کورٹ نے عمر قید کالعدم قرار دی"*
*"برآمدگی 8 جنوری، FSL رپورٹ 13 جنوری: 5 دن کا سوال جس نے پورا کیس ختم کر دیا"*
*"گواہوں کے بیانات میں تضاد + ٹوٹی چین آف کسٹڈی = سپریم کورٹ نے بری کر دیا"*
*"CNS Act کا سخت قانون، لیکن تفتیش کمزور: سپریم کورٹ نے پولیس کی کارکردگی پر سوال اٹھا دیا"*
*"شک کا ایک سایہ بھی کافی ہے: سپریم کورٹ کا CNS کیس میں تاریخی اصول"*
*"سیکشن 29(d) لاگو نہیں ہوئی کیونکہ برآمدگی ہی مشکوک تھی - سپریم کورٹ"* *"سخت سزا کے لیے سخت ثبوت: سپریم کورٹ نے عمر قید کو عمر قید میں بدل دیا"**
"175KG Charas Case: Acquitted on Technicality"*
"Chain Broken, Case Lost | سپریم کورٹ"*
*"Benefit of Doubt Wins: Life Imprisonment Overturned"*
SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail
Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar
Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2020 (Against the judgment dated 26.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Cri. Appeal No. 214/17)
Baz Khan۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔Appellant
Versus
The State۔۔۔۔۔۔Respondent
For the Appellant:
Mr. M. Shabbir Rajput, ASC Mr. Ansar Nawaz Mirza, ASC
For the State:
Mr. Baqar Shah, State Counsel
Ms. Chand Bibi, DPG Islamabad
Ch. Ehtisham ul Haq, PG ANF
Mr. Zafar Iqbal, Chohan, Spl. Prosecutor, ANF
Dr. Waseem Ahmed Qureshi, Spl. Prosecutor, ANF
Ms. Saba Pervez, DD Law, ANF Mr. Saqib Abbas Virk, AD, Law, ANF
Date of Hearing:
01.06.2026
ORDER
Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment dated 26.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, whereby the appellant's conviction and sentence for life imprisonment awarded by the Special Judge (CNS), Quetta, (Trial Court) vide judgment dated 31.07.2017 in case FIR No. 02/2017, registered at Police Station New Kuchlak under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ('CNS Act'), was maintained.
2. Facts in brief are that the complainant, Hakeem Khan, PW-1, while leading a police patrolling party on the morning of the occurrence, received spy information that a white single-door pickup bearing registration No. PAA-038 was proceeding from Jangle Peer Alizai towards Quetta carrying a large quantity of narcotics
driver identified himself as Baz Khan. Upon physical inspection, PW-1 and recovery witness Muhammad Shafi, PW-2 noticed that the floorboard of the vehicle appeared unusually elevated. The vehicle was subsequently shifted to the police station for inspection, where where, after removing the nuts and bolts securing the floorboard, the police allegedly recovered 175 slab-shaped packets wrapped in plastic tape, weighing 175 kilograms in total. A 10-gram sample was drawn from each packet, separately sealed and marked for chemical analysis. On 13.01.2017, the samples were dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Police Crime Branch, Balochistan, Quetta, and the FSL analysis report confirmed a positive chemical response for "CHARAS"-Baked Cannabinoids. Upon completion of the investigation, Abdul Ghaffar (PW-3), the Investigating Officer, submitted the challan before the Trial Court, which, after recording evidence, convicted the appellant as aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant had no connection whatsoever with either the vehicle No. PAA-038 or the alleged recovered charas, claiming that the entire case was the result of malicious fabrication. He submitted that the appellant, a simple labourer, had initially been detained by the police for not possessing a CNIC and was thereafter falsely implicated in the present case. To support this version, the learned counsel relied on the statement of DW-1, Bismillah Jan. Conversely, the learned State counsel supported the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below and stated that the appellant did not deserve any leniency, as he was involved in the heinous offence of narcotics trafficking.
4. Arguments heard and have perused the record. The Trial Court and the High Court discarded the appellant's defence and ordered his conviction based on three legal conclusions; the credibility of the testimony of police officials in the absence of proven personal animosity, the strict application of the driving seat principle which attaches immediate conscious possession of the hidden material, and the statutory presumption under section 29(d) of the CNS Act, which shifts the burden of proof to the accused once physical recovery is initially demonstrated by the State. Though 5. Upon examining the record, we find that the prosecution evidence suffers from material infirmities. An evaluation of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses reveals material inconsistencies that substantially undermine the reliability of the prosecution's recovery account. In particular, significant contradictions emerged regarding the sequence of events leading to the alleged recovery. During cross-examination, PW-1 and PW-2 were unable to give a clear and consistent account of the timing of the incident, the prevailing traffic situation, and the exchange of information at Bostan Phatak. Their inability to present a coherent and consistent narrative regarding the interception of the vehicle, its subsequent movement, and the recovery proceedings casts serious doubt upon the prosecution's version of events and creates a reasonable doubt that cannot be ignored.
6. The prosecution case is further undermined by deficiencies in establishing safe custody and transmission of the samples. In prosecutions under the CNS Act, where the prescribed punishment is exceptionally severe, including life imprisonment, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody demonstrating that the samples remained intact from the time of recovery until their examination by the forensic laboratory. The record shows that the alleged recovery took place on 08.01.2017, however, the official Forensic Science Laboratory Report explicitly mentions that the samples were received on 13.01.2017, reflecting an unexplained delay of five days. The prosecution has failed to satisfactorily explain where the samples remained during this period, in whose custody they were kept, what measures were adopted to ensure their safe preservation, and why the samples were not sent on the same day. The cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, Abdul Ghaffar (PW-3), further discloses uncertainty regarding the procedure adopted for separating, sealing and storing the samples before their dispatch. Such deficiencies create a reasonable possibility of tampering, replacement, or contamination of the samples, thereby rendering the chain of custody doubtful and undermining the reliability of the FSL report, making it unsafe to rely upon the same for maintaining a sentence of life imprisonment.
The burden shifts to the accused only after the prosecution has successfully established a valid and legally unassailable recovery. Where the defense successfully exposes material gaps in the time of arrest, uncovers contradictions in the raid's ex*****on, and demonstrates a breakdown in the safe handling of samples, the foundational block of possession collapses. Consequently, the statutory presumption under Section 29 never triggers against the accused. It is a bedrock principle of criminal jurisprudence that a single distinct shadow of doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to the benefit of acquittal. The law does not require multiple defects; a single systemic flaw that rattles judicial confidence in the purity of the state's investigation is sufficient. In the present case, the combination of conflicting timelines surrounding the roadblock, the unexplained five-day delay in the delivery of test samples to the laboratory, and the lack of verified custody protocols creates significant reasonable doubt. The appellant's alternative plea that he was merely caught during a local checking operation due to his missing identity card was not properly rebutted by the prosecution through a clear and consistent case. Under such circumstances, we find that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge under section 9(c) of the CNS Act, against the appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. These are the reasons of our short order of even date, which is reproduced hereunder:
