Conscious knowledge

2026 SCMR 135 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 2 (za) & 9 [as amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022)]

Recovery of psychotropic substance

Bail, grant of

Case of further inquiry

Rule of consistency

Conscious knowledge

Tablets Rivotril (Clonazepam) were recovered from consignment of goods to be exported abroad

Accused contended that he was neither exporter, shipper, clearing agent nor financer of the shipment and he also did not have conscious knowledge of alleged recovered tablets / medicines

Validity

Exporter and directors of manufacturing company of drugs had been granted bail while clearing / forwarding agent was never arrested

Alleged recovery of psychotropic substance was recovered without videography or photography at the spot to show veracity of raid and role of accused

Role of accused required further proof regarding his involvement in illegal export

Rationale of setting the law into motion in criminal cases is to make an accused face the trial and not to punish him pre-trial or make him rot behind bars because every accused is innocent until proven guilty

Doctrine of "further inquiry" refers to a notional and exploratory assessment that may create doubt regarding involvement of accused in the crime

Rule of consistency or doctrine of parity in bail matters encapsulates that where incriminating and ascribed role to accused is the same as that of co-accused, then benefit extended to one accused should also be extended to co-accused according to the principle "like cases should be treated alike" after accurate evaluation and assessment of co-offender's role in commission of alleged offence

Case of accused was one of further inquiry within the ambit of Section 497, Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed.

2023 PCrLJN 10 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)Export of narcoticsBail, grant ofScopeConscious knowledgeScopeProsecution case was that the accused persons had exported a container wherein 1500 kilograms of heroin was concealed

Investigating Officer had approached the foreign crime agency for retrieving of informative documents and samples of case property through e-mails but the same agency which had recovered narcotic substance had not responded to the request of Investigating Officer

Prosecution was neither in possession of alleged recovered heroin nor any positive report of chemical analysis

Even it was not known if the alleged heroin was sent for chemical analysis or not after being detected from the alleged container

Prosecution had to establish the requisite "conscious knowledge" of the accused persons about the presence of heroin in the consignment

Consignment had passed about nine ports before being targeted by the foreign customs and it was not clear as to when and where heroin was concealed or replaced in journey after leaving Pakistan and who was the owner, master mind, seller and purchaser of the alleged recovered heroin

Case of accused persons was one of further inquiry

Accused persons were admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

2013 PCrLJ 1633 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(c) & 29Narcotic substance, recovery ofAppreciation of evidenceConscious knowledgeProofShifting of onus to proveCharas Garda weighing 159.2 kilogram was recovered from secret cavities of car in use of both the accused personsTrial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for lifeValidity

Both the accused were in the exclusive possession of car, whereof narcotic drugs were recovered, presumption to be that the narcotics concealed in secret cavities of the car was in their knowledge and as such both the accused were said to be in conscious possession of narcotics, otherwise they must prove that they were ignorant of contraband

High Court did not find any infirmity in judgment passed by Trial Court resultantly conviction and sentence was maintained

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.