Muhammad Naseem Versus State

Sardar Ahmad Haleemi, J .--- This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th September, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment ) passed by the learned Special Judge CNS, Balochistan, Quetta (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court ), whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 6, 9(1)3(e), 14 and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as amended by Amendment Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the CNS Act, 1997 ) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for twenty years with fine of Rs.800,000/-, and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for two years. The benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant.

2.As per contents of the crime report No.13/2024 lodged at Police Station ANF RD Balochistan, on 19.03.2024 at about 09:00 a.m., Inspector Faisal Abbas, along with other officials of ANF RD Balochistan, while acting upon spy information, established surveillance near Railway Station, Baleli Road, Quetta. The information allegedly disclosed that the appellant, being an associate of one narcotic smuggler, namely Akram Khan, was transporting a huge quantity of narcotics from Quetta to Karachi in a silver Toyota Corolla bearing Registration No. AVB-076. At about 08:30 a.m., the said vehicle was intercepted at Baleli Road. On query, the appellant disclosed his identity and, on further interrogation, he allegedly admitted the presence of charas concealed beneath the rear seat of the vehicle; in the presence of mashirs, the appellant removed the rear seat cover and produced 57 packets of charas wrapped in yellow tape and hard shoppers from a secret cavity. Each packet allegedly weighed 1 kilogram, bringing the total recovery to 57 kilograms of charas. The recovered contraband was sealed on the spot through a recovery memo; the appellant was arrested, his personal search was conducted, and the vehicle, along with the keys, was taken into possession through a separate mashirnama. Thereafter, a written report was prepared and sent through ASI Malik Muhammad Sarmad Awan to the Police Station ANF RD Balochistan, where FIR No. 13/2024 was registered under sections 6, 9(1)3(e), 14, and 15 of the CNS Act, 1997.

3.After completion of the usual investigation, a challan was submitted before the learned trial Court, where charge was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4.The prosecution examined four witnesses. At the conclusion of the prosecution s evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations and professed innocence. He also examined himself under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. but did not produce any defence witness.

5.The trial Court heard the arguments of the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant vide impugned judgment, hence this criminal appeal.

6.Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the impugned judgment is contrary to facts, law and evidence available on record; that the report of the Government Analyst is defective and not in accordance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, as it neither specifies the tests conducted, nor the protocol adopted for analysis, thereby rendering the chemical report unreliable and inadmissible in evidence; that the prosecution has failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the alleged recovered contraband to the office of the chemical examiner, which creates serious doubt regarding tampering with the case property; that the entire proceedings were allegedly conducted within the premises of the police station in violation of Rule 4(2) of the CNS Rules, 2001; that there are material contradictions and dishonest improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of recovery, sealing and custody of the alleged narcotics, which have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the cases of Ameer Zeb v. The State* (PLD 2012 SC 380), Ikramullah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002) , along with various other judgments of the superior courts and In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance upon the case laws Javaid Khan v. The State (2024 YLR 1611), Raham Gul and another v. The State (2026 SCMR 584), Abdul Raheem v. The State through Special Prosecutor ANF, (Crl.P.L.A No.647/2023 and J.P. No.199/2023) and Zainullah v. The State (Criminal Appeal No.324 of 2025) passed by this court.

7.Conversely, the learned Special Prosecutor ANF contended that the prosecution has established the case through trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence; as such, the same is immune from interference by this court in appellate jurisdiction.

8.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. The prosecution s case suffers from serious legal and procedural infirmities, particularly relating to the safe custody, preservation and transmission of the alleged recovered narcotics. It is a settled principle of law that, in narcotics cases, the prosecution is under a strict obligation to establish through cogent, confidence-inspiring, and unimpeachable evidence an unbroken chain of custody of the recovered substance from the stage of its seizure till its receipt by the office of the chemical examiner, thereby excluding every possibility of tampering, substitution, or manipulation.

9.In the present case, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily prove safe custody and uninterrupted transmission of the samples, as material discrepancies and unexplained gaps in the chain of custody are evident from the record, which strike at the very root of the prosecution s case and render the alleged recovery doubtful. The prosecution witnesses admitted that on 20.03.2024, the sample parcels were handed over to PW-1 for transmission to PFSA Rawalpindi; however, due to a transport strike, the same were allegedly returned to Police Station ANF RD Quetta. Significantly, neither the documentary record nor the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses discloses who received the parcels upon their return, in what condition they were received, whether the seals remained intact, or in what manner and under whose authority the parcels were allegedly re-deposited in the malkhana. Admittedly, no corresponding malkhana entry regarding the redeposit of the sample parcels has been produced on record, nor has any reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence been brought forth to establish their safe custody during the intervening period. The prosecution has thus failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the alleged recovered narcotics from the stage of seizure till their receipt by the chemical examiner, and, consequently, the possibility of tampering, substitution, or manipulation cannot be excluded. In these circumstances, the chain of safe custody stands broken, which creates dent in the prosecution s version and renders the alleged recovery highly doubtful.

10.The prosecution has further failed to establish through tangible, confidence-inspiring evidence the safe custody and secure transmission of the sample parcels to the office of the chemical examiner. Although the delay in dispatching the samples was sought to be explained on the pretext of a transport strike, no independent witness, official communication, documentary material, or any other corroborative evidence has been produced on record to substantiate the said explanation. More importantly, the prosecution has conspicuously failed to explain where the sample parcels remained during the entire period of alleged delay, under whose exclusive custody and control the same were kept, whether any entry regarding their retention or redeposit in the malkhana was made in the official register, and whether the seals affixed upon the parcels remained intact and untampered throughout the intervening period. The prosecution was under a strict legal obligation to affirmatively establish an unbroken chain of safe custody from the moment of seizure till the receipt of the samples by the chemical examiner, to exclude every possibility of tampering, substitution, or manipulation; however, the glaring omissions and unexplained gaps appearing in the prosecution evidence have rendered the entire process of transmission highly doubtful. In these circumstances, the sanctity and evidentiary value of the alleged recovered substance stand seriously compromised, thereby striking at the very root of the prosecution s case.

11.PW-1 Imtiaz Ali Shah HC categorically deposed that he had received the sample parcels from the Moharrar for onward transmission to the chemical examiner; however, due to the alleged transport strike, the same were returned to the police station without being dispatched. Despite the admitted return and subsequent movement of the case property, the prosecution has failed to produce any corresponding entry in Register No. 19 or the malkhana register showing the redeposit of the parcels upon their return or their subsequent re-issuance for transmission to the laboratory. PW-1, in his cross-examination, admitted that on 21.03.24, the investigating officer did not record his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C, nor did he hand over his return tickets. The absence of such mandatory documentary evidence creates a serious, unexplained gap in the prosecution s case regarding the custody, handling, and movement of the sample parcels. In the absence of a complete, consistent, and reliable documentary chain establishing safe custody of the samples at every stage, the prosecution has failed to substantiate an unbroken chain of custody from the time of seizure till the receipt of the samples by the chemical examiner, rendering the prosecution s case highly doubtful and legally unsustainable.

12.It is a well-settled principle of law that, in narcotics cases, proof of safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered substance is a foundational requirement of the prosecution s case. The prosecution is under a strict obligation to establish an unbroken and unimpeachable chain of custody from the stage of seizure till the receipt of the samples by the chemical examiner. Any missing link, discrepancy, or unexplained gap in such a chain of circumstantial evidence creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution s evidence and materially undermines its evidentiary value. It is equally well settled that where such reasonable doubt arises on account of lapses, the same must be resolved in favour of the accused, who is entitled to the benefit thereof as a matter of right in accordance with the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.

13.Another material aspect of the case is that PW-2 ASI Malik Awan tendered the marasla for registration of FIR as Ex.P/2-A, which reflects that out of 57 recovered packets, samples were separately drawn only from packets Nos. 1 to 15, while samples from packets Nos. 16 to 57 were allegedly mixed and sent collectively for chemical analysis, a procedure which creates serious doubt regarding the identity, reliability, and independent status of each packet. The witness in question No. 33 replied that he did not issue the second road certificate. In the absence of individual sampling and proper segregation, it remains unclear whether each packet was separately preserved, correctly sealed, and independently tested in accordance with the mandatory legal requirements governing narcotics cases. The report of chemical examination also fails to clarify whether each packet was individually subjected to analysis or whether the findings are based on a duly representative and verifiable sampling process, and thus, in the absence of such clarity and compliance, the prosecution has failed to establish with certainty that the entire recovered substance falls within the ambit of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, rendering the evidentiary value of the alleged recovery highly doubtful and unsafe for reliance.

14.Moreover, PW-3 is the witness to the recovery memos of vehicle No. AVB-076 (Ex.P/3-A) as well as CNIC, cash, and mobile phone (Ex.P/3-B); according to the prosecution version, the said documents were prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. However, a careful perusal of the same reveals that the case number has been subsequently mentioned thereon, indicating that the documents were prepared after the lodging of the FIR. This material inconsistency between the prosecution s version and the documentary exhibits intrinsic contents creates a serious doubt regarding the genuineness and authenticity of the alleged proceedings conducted at the spot, thereby rendering the entire prosecution version doubtful and unsafe for reliance, in accordance with settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.

15.The report of the Government Analyst Ex.P/4-F is also not in conformity with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, as it does not disclose the complete test protocols, the methodology adopted, or the detailed analytical results upon which the opinion has been formed. It is well settled that strict compliance with Rule 6 ibid is mandatory in narcotics cases, as the statutory requirements are intended to ensure transparency and the scientific credibility of the examination process. The forensic report reflects a collective analysis of multiple samples, rather than clear individual testing of each packet. This, coupled with missing custody links, creates serious doubt regarding the evidentiary value of the recovery. Any non-compliance therewith materially affects the evidentiary value of the report. In the absence of adherence to the mandatory provisions of law, the report of the Government Analyst cannot be safely relied upon to sustain the conviction of the accused, as it fails to meet the standard of certainty required under criminal jurisprudence.

16.We are also not persuaded by the reasons rendered by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment, as the same suffers from misappreciation of material evidence on record. The learned trial court has not properly considered and evaluated the material contradictions, discrepancies, and subsequent improvements in the testimony of the witnesses regarding the alleged recovery, the sealing of the case property, and its safe custody and transmission, which are the foundational requirements in narcotics cases. As such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are legally unsustainable.

17.Furthermore, it appears from the contents of challan Ex.P/4-E that during the course of investigation, the appellant allegedly disclosed the name of the vehicle owner as Muhammad Akram Khan Panaizai, resident of Gulistan, District Killa Abdullah; however, the investigating officer failed to reduce the said disclosure into writing through any recovery memo. or contemporaneous document without offering any plausible justification. Further, the investigating officer failed to take any steps to verify the ownership of the vehicle with the competent authority or the concerned department, nor was any documentary evidence obtained in this regard. Significantly, the alleged owner was neither associated with the investigation nor arrayed as an accused in the case, which omission on the part of the investigating agency creates serious doubt regarding the fairness, completeness, and credibility of the investigation and renders the prosecution case highly doubtful and unsafe for reliance. It is trite law that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt is sufficient to extend the benefit thereof to the accused as a matter of right. Reliance may be placed on Amjad Ali v. The State (2012 SCMR 577), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that any break or doubt in the chain of custody of narcotics is sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused, as safe custody, safe transmission and unimpeachable evidence regarding the sampling and sealing of contraband are prerequisites for sustaining a conviction under narcotics laws, and any contradiction or missing link in this regard vitiates the prosecution case.

18.It is further noted that the samples were sent to PFSA Rawalpindi despite the availability of forensic facilities at Quetta, without any plausible explanation. Though not always fatal, in the present case, where custody itself is doubtful, this deviation adds further uncertainty. Reliance is placed on the case of Jeehand v. The State through Prosecutor General Balochistan (2025 SCMR 923), the operative part read as follows:

19.As a sequel to the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court suffer from misreading, non-reading, and misappreciation of evidence. The prosecution has failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotics, and material contradictions and legal infirmities have rendered its case doubtful.

For the above reasons, Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2025 is allowed; consequently, the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, CNS Quetta, is hereby set aside, and the appellant Muhammad Naseem, son of Muhammad Essa, is acquitted of the charges by extending the benefit of doubt. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

JK/2/Bal. Appeal allowed.