2026 PLP 224 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NASIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2026 PLP 224 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Ali Baqar Najafi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NASIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 224 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 224 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Ali Baqar Najafi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 224 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NASIR — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Government Advocate-on-Record for Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Waris Khan, DSP for Respondent (complainant in person).
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 23.06.2021 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Crl.A. No. 1599-P of 2019).
S. 9(c)
Possession of narcotic substances
Safe custody of recovered narcotic and sample not established
Prosecution case was that 26-kilograms charas in 26-packets was recovered from the vehicle of the accused-petitioner
Complainant had admitted during the cross-examination that he had not mentioned the name of the petitioner as the one who was driving the car though he was statedly a driver but without any license
Complainant admitted that besides the place of occurrence, there was a big building of school and college where CCTV cameras might have been installed but he did not confirm it and did not collect any footage
Complainant did not specifically name the person to whom he had handed over the case property as well as the sample parcels
Recovery witness also had not stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle and had also not stated the person to whom the sample parcels were given
Investigating Officer did not witness the charas at the time of recovery as it was already sealed into parcel and that he only handed over to Moharrir the copy of FIR, Murasila, card of arrest and recovery memo
On the other hand Moharrir stated that complainant handed over to him parcels 1 to 27 which he kept in the Malkhana of police station and made entry in Register No. 19 (not produced) but the fact of handing over of the case property was not stated by the complainant
Likewise, Police Constable stated that he had carried parcels Nos. 1 to 26 to Forensic Science Laboratory and received acknowledgment but admitted that he had not mentioned that the said Moharrir had given him road certificate or sample parcels
Said witness also admitted that he had not signed Register No. 19
It was notable that neither Moharrir stated that he had handed over the parcels to Police Constable nor said Constable specifically named the said Moharir who had handed over the said sample parcels
Said fact clearly broke the chain of safe custody which was mandatory for the ends of justice to establish the prosecution case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt
In the narcotic cases right from the recovery of the contraband to the delivery of the case property in the Court, a long chain of unbroken safe custody has to be proved
Prosecution had, therefore, not been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt since the recovery of substance from the possession of the petitioner as narcotic had not been proved
Petition was converted into an appeal and, was allowed, in circumstances and petitioner was acquitted of the charge.
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.
Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, a leave to appeal is sought against the impugned judgment whereby trial court's judgment dated 09.12.2019 was upheld and the conviction of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lac against the petitioner was maintained.
2. Briefly the prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 21.12.2018, Waris Khan SHO (PW-1) through complaint (Exh.PA/1) reported that a car bearing registration No.LXF-8348 was stopped for checking during patrol duty at Ring Road near Mehboob Service Station Peshawar and the driver disclosed his name as Muhammad Nasir/petitioner present along with his companions, namely, Javed and Ibrahim (since acquitted). During search of the vehicle, 26 packets of Charas (each packet 1000 grams total 26 kgs) were recovered from the secret cavity made in the rear seat of the car in the presence of Hussain Ali (PW-2) and Wilayat Khan (not produced). The petitioner was indicted who denied the allegation levelled against him whereafter the prosecution produced as many as 06 witnesses. Anwar Ali Inspector (PW-3) conducted the investigation whereas Dil Jan (PW-4) had received the samples 1 to 26 and carried them to the FSL whereas Pervaiz Khan ASI/Moharrir (PW-5) stated that he retained the parcels in Malkhana. As per FSL report (Exh.PZ) 26 packets were of Charas.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scanning the above prosecution evidence, it is straightaway observed that Waris Khan SHO (PW-1) had admitted during the cross-examination that he had not mentioned the name of the petitioner as the one who was driving the car though he was statedly a driver but without any license. He admitted that besides the place of occurrence, there was a big building of Islamia School and College where CCTV cameras might have been installed but he did not confirm it and did not collect any footage. He did not specifically named the person to whom he had handed over the case property as well as the sample parcels. Hussain Ali (PW-2) is the recovery witness who also had not stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle and has also not stated the person to whom the sample parcels were given. Anwar Ali Inspector (PW-3) being the investigating officer did not witness the charas at the time of recovery as it was already sealed into parcel and that he only handed over to Pervaiz Khan ASI (PW-5) Moharrir the copy of FIR, Murasila, Card of arrest and recovery memo. On the other hand Pervaiz Khan ASI/Moharrir (PW-5) stated that Waris Khan SHO/complainant (PW-1) handed over to him parcels 1 to 27 which he kept in the Malkhana of police station and made entry in register No.19 (not produced) but the fact of handing over of the case property was not stated by the complainant (PW-1). Likewise, Dil Jan FC (PW-4) stated that he had carried parcels Nos. 1 to 26 to FSL and received acknowledgment but admitted that he had not mentioned that the said Moharrir (PW-5) had given him road certificate or sample parcels. He also admitted that he had not signed register No.19. It is also notable that neither Pervaiz Khan ASI/Moharrir (PW-5) stated that he had handed over the parcels to Dil Jan (PW-4) nor Dil Jan (PW-4) specifically named the said Pervaiz Khan ASI/Moharir (PW-5) who had handed over the said sample parcels. This clearly breaks the chain of safe custody which is mandatory for the ends of justice to establish the prosecution case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite law that in the narcotics cases right from the recovery of the contraband to the delivery of the case property in the court, a long chain of unbroken safe custody has to be proved. The prosecution has therefore, not been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt since the recovery of substance from the possession of the petitioner as narcotics had not been proved.
4. In this view of the matter, the leave to appeal is granted and this appeal is allowed. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. JK/M-121/SC Appeal allowed.