2026 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen, J.

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant (Hazar Khan) challenging the judgment dated 21.02.2025 (wrongly mentioned in the 1st page of the judgment as 21.02.2024 ) (hereinafter the impugned judgment ) passed by learned Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances Quetta Balochistan (hereinafter the trial Court ) in case No.49/2024 (FIR No.19/2024 registered at Police Station ANF Quetta), whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 9 (2)9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Amended Act 2022 (hereinafter the CNS Act) ) and sentenced to suffer for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.20,00,000/-, in case of non-payment of fine, to further suffer six (06) months S.I with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.

2. Facts of the case are that a case vide FIR No.19/2024 dated 22.03.2024 under section 9 (2)9 of the CNS Act was registered with Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force Quetta on the complaint of Inspector Muhammad Aslam Police Station ANF Quetta with the averments that on 22.03.2024, high officials received information through an informant that drug smugglers Abdul Rahim, Sher Khan and Hazar Khan are jointly involved in large-scale drug trafficking and today Hazar Khan on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.MAB-1600 is coming to near Mill Colony Stop, Sariab Road Quetta to deliver drugs to someone; upon receiving this information, a raiding party including Sub-Inspector from ANF departed around 02:30 p.m., and reached near Mill Colony Stop, Sariab Road Quetta at around 02:45 p.m and started surveillance. At around 03:15 p.m., a person riding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.MAB-1600 came from Mill colony. He had a trolley bag on the motorcycle's tank; he stopped near Mill Colony Stop, Sariab Road; the informant identified him as the wanted person (Hazar Khan); the said person was immediately surrounded and apprehended with the help of officials; nearby peoples were asked to be witnesses, but they refused due to fear of drug dealers; thus from the raiding party, two officials were designated as witnesses; upon asking the apprehended person for his name and address, he disclosed his name as Hazar Khan son of Behram Khan; he was asked about the drugs, the said person after some hesitation admitted to having Methamphetamine (Ice) in a black trolley bag; he opened the top of the trolley bag and took out 06-packets of Methamphetamine (Ice) sealed with tape and handed them over to the Sub-Inspector; the recovered packets were numbered as 1 to 6 and weighed on the spot. Each packet contained 01/01-kilogram, totaling 06 kilograms of Methamphetamine (Ice); from all the recovered Methamphetamine (Ice) packets, 10/10-grams of Methamphetamine (Ice) were separately taken as samples for chemical analysis and sealed in parcel Nos.1 to 6, while the remaining Methamphetamine (Ice) packets were sealed in parcel No.7; the recovered contraband and motorcycle were taken into possession, hence this case.

3. On completion of investigation, Challan of the case was submitted before the trial Court; charge was framed and read over to the appellant, to which, he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced and examined the following witnesses: PW-1 ASI Danish Fazal Moharrar. PW-2 ASI Qais Ahmed Sanwal. PW-3 Constable Shafi Ullah. PW-4 IP Muhammad Aslam. He is complainant and Investigation Officer of the case.

4. After completion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the prosecution allegations. However, the appellant did not opt to record his statement on oath nor produced any witness in his defense.

5. After concluding evidence and hearing arguments, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the period as mentioned in para-1 above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case; that the prosecution has failed to produce trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence to substantiate the charge against the appellant; that despite availability of private witnesses, the requirements of section 103 Cr.P.C has not been fulfilled by the prosecution; that the prosecution has failed to prove safe custody and safe transmission of the alleged recovered contraband; that there is glaring contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which cast doubt on the integrity of the prosecution's case; that the complainant, seizing officer as well as the Investigating Officer of the case is the same person, but as per Police Rules, a Investigating Officer cannot be part of or a member of any party involved in the case; and that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court is result of misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence available on record.

7. While opposing the appeal, learned Special Prosecutor ANF stated that through consistent and confidence inspiring testimony of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; that the police officials are as good witnesses as any other private witnesses; that there is no motive on the part of the complainant or the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant and that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record.

8. We have heard Barrister Amir Muhammad Lehri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Habib-ur-Rehman Baloch, Special Prosecutor ANF representing the state. With their valuable assistance, we have carefully examined the case record.

9. The key facts of the prosecution's case are that on 22.03.2024, an FIR No.19/2024 was lodged by IP Muhammad Aslam (PW-4) at Police Station ANF Quetta, District Quetta against the accused/appellant. The allegations state that senior officials received spy information that Abdul Raheem, Sher Khan and Hazar Khan are involved in the narcotics trade and that today Hazar Khan was expected to supply narcotics to his customer near the Mill Colony stop Sariab Road, Quetta. Based on this information, a raiding party of Police Station ANF including the complainant and other ANF officers, arrived and started monitoring the area. At around 03:15 p.m., a person riding on a red motorcycle bearing Registration No.MAB-1600 carrying a trolley bag, was stopped who was and identified by the informer. The trolley bag on the bike contained five (05) compartments, each holding six (06) packets of methamphetamine /ice, totaling 06-kilograms. From this quantity, 10-grams from each packet were separated for analysis at the Forensic Science Laboratory ( FSL ). These samples were sealed into parcel Nos.1 to 6 and the Murrasila was sent via Constable Shafi Ullah for registration of FIR.

10. The review of the record shows that the alleged contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellant by PW-4 IP Muhammad Aslam who serves as the Seizing Officer, complainant and Investigating Officer in this case, making him a three-in-one role. According to the law, the complainant and the accused are two opposing parties. The role of an Investigating Officer is to serve as an objective authority with the goal of uncovering the truth. An Investigating Officer cannot be part of or a member of any party involved in the case they are Investigation. For guidance on investigation procedures, reference can be made to Chapter-XXV of the Police Rules 1934, Rule 25.2 (3) of the Police Rules, 1934 which states as follows: It is the duty of an Investigating Officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person.

11. The language of the aforementioned Police Rules requires an Investigating Officer not to prematurely form an opinion on the facts, whether for or against any person. This is impossible for an Investigating Officer who is also a party. The concept of honest investigation relies on impartiality and neutrality. The reason for separating the investigation wing from the operational wing of the police also stems from this principle, as reflected in Article 18 of the Police Order 2002; therefore, we believe that the element of honest, transparent and fair investigation is absent in this case. If this standard were applied to the case of the accused, it would be clear from the record that the complainant, acting as an Investigating Officer, could not be expected to be fair and transparent. Fair investigation is the fundamental right of the accused. Reliance is placed on the cases of The State v. Waris Khan, 2016 MLD 920 and Saqib Ramzan v. The State and another, 2023 PCr.LJ 1479.

12. We have noted straight away that the safe custody of the parcels containing the samples and the parcel of case property from the recovered narcotics has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution in this case. Muhammad Aslam IP (PW-4) is the complainant and the Investigation Officer in the case. He stated that after recovery the parcels of case property and samples, he handed over the said parcels to Moharrar of the Malkhana at the police station. However, he did not name the Moharrar of the Malkhana to whom he handed over the parcels on 22.03.2024. It is now well settled that very stringent punishments have been provided under the provisions of CNS Act; therefore, the provisions of the CNS Act are to be strictly construed. The prosecution in such cases is bound to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the benefit of even the slightest doubt in the case under the CNS Act is to be extended to the accused. Reliance is placed on the cases of Ameer Zeb v. The State, PLD 2012 SC 380 and Asif Ali v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1408.

13. In cases under CNS Act, the prosecution must prove each link in the chain, from the recovery stage to the creation of sample parcels, their secure custody, and the safe transfer of these parcels to the relevant laboratory. The prosecution must establish this chain; if any link is missing, the benefit must be given to the accused. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Javed Iqbal v. The State, 2023 SCMR 139.

14. Rule 22.16 of the Police Rules, 1934, addresses case property. Sub-rule (1) states that, in certain circumstances, the police shall seize weapons, articles, and property related to criminal cases, and take custody of property (excluding cattle) seized under the above subrule shall be marked or labeled with the name of the person from whom it was seized or the place where it was taken, along with a reference to the case diary or other report filed at the police station.

15. Rule 22.70 of the Police Rules, 1934, requires that Register No.XIX be maintained in Form 22.70 of the Police Rules at the police station. Except for items already listed in Register No.XIX, every stored item shall be recorded and any removal of such an item shall also be noted in the appropriate column. The police and prosecution must establish that the case property was kept in safe custody and, if it was sent to any laboratory for analysis, prove the safe transmission of the property further. This includes documenting the process in the relevant register, such as the road certificate. The procedure in the Police Rules ensures that the case property, when presented before the Court, remains in safe custody and is not tampered with until then. A comprehensive system is in place in Police Rules for the safe custody and proper transmission of case property to the concerned laboratory and then to the trial Court.

16. The prosecution presented PW-1 ASI Danish Fazal, although he produced a copy of Register No.XIX; however, a review of it reveals that it has not been appropriately maintained. No entry is made regarding the recovery of the alleged items from the appellant's possession nor does it specify who received the articles and when. Columns 5 of Register No. XIX state that every item placed in the storeroom should be recorded and the removal of any such item should also be noted in the appropriate column. However, Ex.P/1-B did not support the prosecution's case in this regard, as columns 6 and 7 of Register No. XIX show that no responsible officer has signed to verify the entry and removal of the narcotics in question, including the sample parcels. Therefore, it is clear that the case property was not kept in safe custody, as column 05 is blank. As a result, the prosecution has compromised the safe custody and transfer of the alleged items. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ahmed Ali v. The State, 2023 SCMR 781 has held that a single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable would be sufficient to entitle the accused of its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.

17. The prosecution's case relies on prior information and that too within the court's timings. However, the complainant neither attempted to obtain search warrants as required by Section 20 of the CNS Act nor provided any reason for not complying with Section 20 of CNS Act. Similarly, the prior information was never recorded in Register No.II, as mandated by Rule 22.49(n) of Police Rules. The Honorable Supreme Court, in the case of Zain Shahid v. the State, 2024 SCMR 843, in paragraph 8, observed the following: The case against the petitioner was initiated upon spy information, but such information was not reduced into writing. Fair play demands that spy information should be reduced into writing in order to safeguard innocent persons against false implication.

18. Certain contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, as documented in the record, regarding the preparation of the sample parcels, also raise doubts about the prosecution's case.

19. The superior Courts have consistently held that even the slightest doubt in the prosecution's case is enough to acquit an accused individual. To provide the benefit of the doubt, many circumstances do not require establishing doubt. A single circumstance that creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt entitles him to that benefit, not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. Reliance could be placed on the case of Muhammad Akram v. The State, 2009 SCMR 230, wherein it has been held as under:

13. The nutshell of the whole discussion is that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matter of right and not of grace. It was observed by this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right .

20. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 21.02.2025 passed by learned trial Court is set aside and while extending the benefit of doubt, the appellant Hazar Khan son of Behram Khan is acquitted of the charge in case No.49/2024 (FIR No.19/2024 registered with Police Station ANF Quetta. The appellant being in custody is ordered to be released forthwith, if not, required in any other case. JK/88/Bal. Appeal allowed.