2026 P Cr. L J 169

 2026 P Cr. L J 169

[Sindh]

Before Tasneem Sultana and Syed Faiz-ul-Hassan Shah, JJ

Mst. SHIREEN alias Samina and another---Appellants

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2023, decided on 23rd August, 2025.

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---

----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of

evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody and transmission of

narcotic and samples not established---Prosecution case was that

1580 grams and 1130 grams charas was recovered from the

accused-appellants respectively---In the present case, the

complainant deposed that the narcotic substances recovered from

the appellants were seized, sealed into two separate parcels under

memo. of arrest, and thereafter handed over to Head Constable,

Head Moharrar, as reflected from the entry No.107 of 2023 dated

28.04.2023---Investigating Officer stated that on the same day, i.e.,

28.04.2023, he proceeded to the place of incident, and later on

03.05.2023 deposited the sample parcels in the office of the

Chemical Examiner---Head Constable asserted that on 02.05.2023,

the said parcels were delivered by him to Investigating Officer---

Perusal of the extract of Register No.XIX revealed that in column

No.2, the name of complainant along with the date of occurrence

had been incorporated, but in columns No.6 and 7, it was recorded

that the entire case property was handed over to Investigating

Officers on 02.04.2023---Said date preceded the alleged occurrence

of the offence, which, according to the prosecution itself took place

on 28.04.2023---No explanation whatsoever had been furnished by

the prosecution as to how the case property could have been

handed over or received on a date anterior to the incident---Such a

glaring contradiction shook the very foundation of the prosecution's

claim of safe custody and transmission of the narcotics---Chemical

Examiner's report recorded that two sample parcels were received

in the said office on 03.05.2023 under memorandum dated

02.05.2023, bearing date 29.04.2023, through Investigating Officer---

Such inconsistency in dates and absence of any cogent explanation

casted serious doubt upon the integrity of the chain of custody,

which was a condition precedent for the report of the Chemical Examiner to be treated as reliable evidence---Appeal against

conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---

----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of

evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chain of custody of narcotic substance

not proved---Prosecution case was that 1580 grams and 1130 grams

chars was recovered from the accused-appellants respectively---

According to the prosecution's own stance, the entire case property

was forwarded to the office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis---

However, the record was conspicuously silent as to who

subsequently brought back the case property from the said office

and when it was returned for its production before the Trial Court

during the course of evidence---Prosecution had not examined any

official or produced any documentary proof to establish this crucial

link---Safe return and production of case property in Court was as

essential as its safe transmission to the Chemical Examiner, because

unless that chain was shown to be complete and free from

suspicion, the sanctity of the case property stands compromised---In

narcotics cases, where the conviction primarily rested upon the

report of the Chemical Examiner, any gap in the chain of custody

vitiated the evidentiary value of such a report and rendered it

incapable of sustaining conviction---Prosecution was under a

bounden duty to establish not only the recovery of narcotics, but

also the separation of samples and their onward transmission

through safe and secure hands---Any lapse or violation in that

regard strikes at the very root of the prosecution's case---Since the

prosecution had failed to establish the safe custody and secure

transmission of the parcels of case property from the police station

to the office of the Chemical Examiner and thereafter to the Court,

the report of the Chemical Examiner had consequently lost its

conclusiveness and could not be relied upon as the basis for

conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others

2018 SCMR 2039 and Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State 2021 SCMR 451

rel.

(c) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution bore the bounden duty

to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt---If a reasonable

doubt arises, its benefit must be extended to the accused, not as a

matter of concession, but as a matter of right.

(d) Criminal trial....

Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single reasonable doubt is sufficient

to discredit the prosecution s case.

Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Muhammad Akram v. The

State 2009 SCMR 23 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2001 SCMR 23

rel.

Abdul Jalil and Sajeel Rehman for Appellants.

Mumtaz Ali Shah, A.P.G. Sindh for the State.

Date of hearing: 3rd July, 2025.

JUDGMENT

TASNEEM SULTANA, J.---Through this criminal appeal, appellants

namely Mst. Shireen alias Samina and Rasheed have assailed the

judgment dated 19.09.2023, passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions

Judge / Special Court (CNS) Malir. Karachi (Trial Court) in Special Case

No. 1390 of 2023 arisen out of FIR No 200 of 2023, registered at PS.

Sukhan, Karachi, under Sections 6, 9(1)3(c) of Control of Narcotic

Substances Act, 1997 ('Act of 1997') whereby the appellants Mst.

Shireen alias Samina and Rasheed were convicted and sentenced to

suffer RI for 14 years each for an offence punishable under Sections 6.

9(1)3(c) of the Act of 1997 and to pay fine of Rs 4.00.000/- each and in

default of payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for

four months more. However, the appellants were extended the benefit

of Section 382-B Cr.P.C by the trial Court.

2. It is alleged that on 28.04.2023 at about 0330 hours police party

headed by SIP Riaz Ahmad Sanjrani of PS Sukhan arrested the

appellants namely Shireen alias Samina and Rasheed from Muhallah

Rehari Goth, Landhi Malir, Karachi, on being found in possession of

1580 grams and 1130 grams of charas, respectively, under a memo. of

arrest and recovery prepared in presence of mashirs PC. Waheed

Shah and DPC Zubair for that they were booked in the aforesaid FIR.

3. After usual investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet

under section 173, Cr.P.C against them. Having been supplied

requisite documents as provided under section 265-C Cr.P.C. the Trial

Court framed a formal charge against the accused namely Shireen

alias Samina and Rasheed to which they pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses. PW-1

complainant, SI-Riaz Ahmed was examined at Ex.3, he produced entry

at Ex.3/A, memo. of arrest, recovery and personal search at Ex.3/B, FIR

at Ex.3/C, entry No.63 at Ex.3/D. entry No. 107/2023 of register No 19 at

Ex.3/E and memo. of inspection at Ex.3/F: PW-2 P.C. Waheed Shahid at Ex.4; PW-3 SIP Ali Murad at Ex.5, he produced report/entry No. 15 at

Ex.5/A, report/entry No.18 at Ex.5/B, letter dated 29.04.2023 for CRO at

Ex.5/C. FIR at Ex.5/D, letter dated 29.04.2023 for inspection at Ex.5/E,

sample receipt at 5/F, chemical report at Ex.5/G, entries Nos. 51 and 46

at Ex.5/H and 5/1; PW-4 H.C. Ansar Abbas at Ex.6, he produced original

register No.19, entry No.107/2023; and PW-5 LPC Nabeela Shah at

Ex.10.

5. The statement of appellants under section 342, Cr. P.C. was

recorded at Ex. 12 and 13 respectively, wherein they have denied the

allegations levelled against them by the prosecution and claimed to be

innocent. Appellants deposed that they have falsely been implicated in

this case and nothing was recovered from their possession. They,

however, neither examined themselves on oath to disprove

prosecution's allegations nor they opted to produce any witness in

their defence. The Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the

appellants as well as ADPP for the State convicted the appellants and

sentenced them, vide impugned judgment.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. The prosecution's case rests on the alleged recovery of 1580 grams

of charas from the possession of appellant Shireen alias Samina and

1130 grams of charas from the possession of appellant Rasheed,

effected by complainant SIP Riaz Ahmed. Both appellants were

subsequently arrested under a memo. of arrest and recovery.

8. At this juncture, it is pertinent to observe that in cases under the

Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where stringent punishments

are prescribed, the superior Courts have repeatedly emphasized that

the standard of proof required from the prosecution must be of the

highest degree. It is a settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence

that the prosecution is duty bound to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt, and any material deficiency must operate in favour of the

accused.

9. In narcotics cases, the most crucial consideration is the safe

custody of the recovered substance and the safe and secure

transmission of its representative samples from the time of recovery

until their production before the trial Court. The rationale is that the

report of the Chemical Examiner attains conclusiveness only when

the sanctity of the chain of custody remains intact and free from

suspicion. Therefore, the pivotal question that falls for

determination in this appeal is:

"Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving an unbroken

chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotics from the time of seizure up to their production in Court, as required

by law?"

10. In the present case, the complainant PW-1 SIP Riaz Ahmed

deposed that the narcotic substances recovered from the appellants

were seized, sealed into two separate parcels under memo. of arrest

(Exh.-B), and thereafter handed over to PW-4 HC Ansar Abbas, Head

Moharrar, as reflected from the entry No. 107 of 2023 dated 28.04.2023

(Exh.-3/E). PW-3 SIP Ali Murad, who was entrusted with the

investigation, stated that on the same day, i.e., 28.04.2023, he

proceeded to the place of incident (Exh.-3/F), and later on 03.05.2023

deposited the sample parcels in the office of the Chemical Examiner

(Exh-5/E. Exh.-5/G). PW-4 HC Ansar Abbas asserted that on 02.05.2023,

the said parcels were delivered by him to SIP Ali Murad.

11. A serious infirmity, however, is manifest from the perusal of the

extract of Register No.XIX. In column No.2, the name of SIP Riaz

Ahmed along with the date of occurrence has been incorporated, but

in columns Nos. 6 and 7, it is recorded that the entire case property

was handed over to SIP Ali Murad on 02.04.2023. This date precedes

the alleged occurrence of the offence, which, according to the

prosecution itself, took place on 28.04.2023. No explanation

whatsoever has been furnished by the prosecution as to how the case

property could have been handed over or received on a date anterior

to the incident. Such a glaring contradiction shakes the very

foundation of the prosecution's claim of safe custody and transmission

of the narcotics.

12. This infirmity is further aggravated by the fact that the Chemical

Examiner's report records that two sample parcels were received in

the said office on 03.05.2023 under memorandum No.122/2023

(02.05.2023), bearing date 29.04.2023, through SIP Ali Murad. The

inconsistency in dates and absence of any cogent explanation casts

serious doubt upon the integrity of the chain of custody, which is a

condition precedent for the report of the Chemical Examiner to be

treated as reliable evidence.

13. It is further observed that, according to the prosecution's own

stance, the entire case property was forwarded to the office of the

Chemical Examiner for analysis. However, the record is

conspicuously silent as to who subsequently brought back the case

property from the said office and when it was returned for its

production before the trial Court during the course of evidence. The

prosecution has not examined any official or produced any

documentary proof to establish this crucial link. The safe return and

production of case property in Court is as essential as its safe

transmission to the Chemical Examiner, because unless this chain is shown to be complete and free from suspicion, the sanctity of the

case property stands compromised. In narcotics cases, where the

conviction primarily rests upon the report of the Chemical Examiner,

any gap in the chain of custody vitiates the evidentiary value of such

a report and renders it incapable of sustaining conviction.

14. It is by now a settled principle of law that the prosecution is

under a bounden duty to establish not only the recovery of narcotics,

but also the separation of samples and their onward transmission

through safe and secure hands, any lapse or violation in this regard

strikes at the very root of the prosecution's case. Reliance may be

placed upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and

others (2018 SCMR 2039), wherein it was held that:

9. We have noted above that in Criminal Appeals Nos.523 to

525/2017 and No. 22/2018, safe custody and safe transmission of

the alleged drug from the spot of recovery till its receipt by the

Narcotics Testing Laboratory are not satisfactorily established.

The chain of custody begins with the recovery of the seized drug

by the Police and includes the separation of the representative

sample(s) of the seized drug and their dispatch to the Narcotics

Testing Laboratory. This chain of custody, is pivotal construct of

the Act and the Rules rests on the Report of the Government

Analyst, which in turn rests on the process of sampling and its

safe and secure custody and transmission to the laboratory. The

prosecution must establish that the chain of custody was

unbroken, unsuspicious, indubitable, safe and secure. Any break

in the chain of custody or lapse in the control of possession of

the sample, will cast doubts on the safe custody and safe

transmission of the sample(s) and will impair and vitiate the

conclusiveness and reliability of the Report of the Government

Analyst, thus, rendering it incapable of sustaining conviction.

This Court has already held in Amjad Ali v. State (2012 SCMR

577) and Ikramullah v. State (2015 SCMR 1002) that where safe

custody or safe transmission of the alleged drug is not

established, the Report of the Government Analyst becomes

doubtful and unreliable

Reliance is also placed on case of Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State"

(2021 SCMR 451), wherein it has been held that:-

"The chain of custody or safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic

drug begins with seizure of the narcotic drug by the law

enforcement officer, followed by separation of the representative

samples of the seized narcotic drug storage of the representative

samples and the narcotic drug with the law enforcement agency and then dispatch of the representative samples of the narcotic

drugs to the office of the chemical examiner for examination and

testing. This chain of custody must be safe and secure. This is

because, the Report of the Chemical Examiner enjoys critical

importance under CNSA and the chain of custody ensures that

correct representative samples reach the office of the Chemical

Examiner. Any break or gap in the chain of custody i.e. in the safe

custody or safe transmission of the narcotic drug or its

representative samples makes the Report of the Chemical

Examiner unsafe and unreliable for justifying conviction of the

accused. The prosecution, therefore, has to establish that the chain

of custody has been unbroken and is safe, secure and indisputable

in order to be able to place reliance on the Report of the Chemical

Examiner."

15. Since the prosecution has failed to establish the safe custody and

secure transmission of the parcels of case property from the police

station to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Government of Sindh,

Karachi, and thereafter to the Court, the report of the Chemical

Examiner (Exh.-5/G) has consequently lost its conclusiveness and

cannot be relied upon as the basis for conviction. It is by now well

settled that where the safe custody of the allegedly recovered

substance or case property is not proved, there is no necessity to

examine the other merits of the case, as such deficiency straightaway

entitles the accused to acquittal. In this regard, guidance is sought

from the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan

in The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh (supra).

16. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that

every accused person is to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty

through evidence of unimpeachable character. The prosecution bears

the bounden duty to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, and if

a reasonable doubt arises, its benefit must be extended to the accused,

not as a matter of concession, but as a matter of right. The law does

not countenance conviction on the basis of presumptions or

conjectures, particularly in cases carrying severe punishments under

the CNSA.

17. It has been repeatedly held by the superior Courts that even the

slightest doubt surfacing on the record is sufficient to discredit the

prosecution's case and entitles the accused to acquittal. Further, there

can be no second opinion that the emphasis of justice is upon the

quality of evidence, which must be free from suspicion and strong

enough to dispel any apprehension of false implication of innocent

persons along with the guilty. 18. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the celebrated dictum of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR

1345), wherein it was held that the benefit of doubt, however slight,

must always go to the accused. The principle has been reiterated in

Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230), where it was

categorically observed that even the possibility of a single reasonable

doubt is sufficient to discredit the prosecution's case. The same

principle was earlier echoed in Muhammad Akram v. The State (2001

SCMR 23), thereby firmly establishing this rule as a cornerstone of

criminal justice in Pakistan.

19. The nutshell of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution

has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond

the shadow of doubt. The material contradictions regarding the chain

of custody, the unexplained discrepancies in dates, and the absence of

evidence establishing safe return and production of the case property

before the trial Court, all combine to render the prosecution's version

unreliable. Once the prosecution's case collapses on such fundamental

grounds, there remains no necessity to advert or scrutinize the

defence version, as the same becomes inconsequential in the face of

prosecution's failure to discharge its primary burden of proof.

20. Resultantly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment dated 19.09.2023, passed by the learned Trial Court, is

hereby set aside. The appellants, namely Mst. Shireen alias Samina

and Rasheed, are acquitted of the charge by extending to them the

benefit of doubt. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in

connection with any other case.

21. These are the reasons of our short order dated 03.07.2025.

JK/S-72/Sindh Appeal allowed.