2026 PLP 581 (MLD)

Ali Zia Bajwa, J.

Muhammad Irfan son of Malik Muhammad Ashraf, caste Malik, resident of Street No. 7 Bhasar Pura, District Kasur (hereinafter 'the appellant'), was implicated in case FIR No.739/2024, dated 20.03.2024, offence under Section 9(1)-3(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter 'CNSA'), registered with Police Station B-Division, District Kasur. He was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge notified as Judge, Special Court CNSA, Kasur (hereinafter the trial court ) under the afore-mentioned offence. The trial court seized with the matter, vide judgment dated 03.01.2025 (hereinafter 'the impugned judgment ), convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following terms:- Under Section 9(1)-3(c) of the CNSA, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years with fine of Rs.80,000/- and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant.

2. Through this appeal filed under Section 48 of the CNSA, vires of the impugned judgment have been called into question.

3. Prosecution story as given in the FIR (Exh.PA) has been reproduced as infra:- After registration of the case, the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation having found the appellant connected with the crime in question, the Investigating Officer got prepared a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., listing the appellant's name in column No.3, and submitted it to the trial court.

4. After submission of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C, trial court formally indicted the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution, in order to establish its case, produced as many as seven (07) prosecution witnesses. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant as provided under Section 342, Cr.P.C., was recorded by the trial court. The appellant professed his innocence and refuted the allegations levelled against him in the prosecution evidence. Upon the completion of the trial, the trial court having found the case against the appellant to have been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above.

5. Arguments heard and the record available on file perused.

6. According to the prosecution version on 20.03.2024, when the appellant was apprehended by the complainant and other police officials, he was found in possession of a polythene bag containing two pieces of contraband charas total weighing 1500 grams, was recovered. The complainant separated 50 grams from one piece and 25 grams from other piece and made into separate sealed parcels for chemical analysis. As far as the prosecution version qua the recovery is concerned, the same has been substantiated through the statements of Muhammad Sona ASI (PW-4)/complainant, Shehzad Iqbal 1607/C (PW-2) and Sabir Hussain 1322/HC (PW-5). While appearing in the witness-box all the prosecution witnesses remained affirmed qua minute details of the mode of recovery of the contraband from the appellant. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination on material aspects; however, their testimonies could not be shaken in any manner whatsoever.

7. After registration of the case, the investigation was entrusted to Naseer Ahmad SI (PW-6), who reached the place of occurrence where he was handed over the recovered narcotic substance (sample parcels and the parcels of remaining bulk quantity) along with custody of the appellant. On reaching the police station, the Investigating Officer (PW-6) deposited the sample parcels and the parcels of remaining bulk quantity with Muhammad Khalid 328/HC (PW-3)/Moharrar for safe custody and onward transmission to the quarters concerned. The said Moharrar (PW-3), on 21.03.2024 handed over the sample parcels separated from the recovered narcotic substance to Naseer Ahmad SI (PW-6)/ Investigating Officer for depositing in the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA). Name of the Investigating Officer (PW-6) duly reflects in the forensic report. On 25.03.2024 Moharrar (PW-3) handed over the remaining bulk quantity to the Investigating Officer (PW-6), who deposited it with Ataullah ASI (PW-7) Incharge Malkhana Saddar, Kasur. Thus, prosecution successfully established the chain of safe custody of the recovered contraband. The forensic report (Exh.PE) depicts that two sample parcels, sent for chemical analysis, contained charas. The report further reflects the details of tests and protocols applied to carry out such tests, which meet the requirement of relevant law.

8. Admittedly, all the prosecution witnesses in the present case are police officials. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that they bore any animosity or malice against the appellant that would have motivated them to falsely implicate or substitute him in place of the actual culprit(s). Police officials are as competent and credible as any other private witnesses. In the absence of any demonstrated animosity or mala fide intent, their testimony is worthy of reliance, provided it remains consistent and unshaken during the test of cross-examination. Reliance can be placed on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Abrar Ahmad Farooq and others v. The State and another PLD 2024 SC 815 and Ali Taj and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 900.

9. Furthermore, during the course of the investigation, the appellant was found to be thoroughly connected with the commission of the offence by the Investigating Officer. Consequently, his name was placed in Column No. 3 of the report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

10. Based on the discussion above, it is conclusively established that the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. The evidence presented was clear and convincing, demonstrating the recovery of contraband from the appellant, maintaining an unbroken chain of custody, and ensuring its safe transmission to the forensic lab. The PFSA report confirmed that the narcotic substance recovered from the appellant was indeed charas. Hence, the trial court while appreciating the evidence in its true perspective, recorded conviction and sentence against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to identify any legal errors, flaws, or misinterpretations of the evidence in the impugned judgment that may warrant intervention by this Court at the appellate stage. Resultantly the instant criminal appeal being devoid of any merits hereby stands dismissed in its entirety as a consequence whereof, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court in terms of impugned judgment are maintained. JK/M-29/L Appeal dismissed.