2026 P Cr. L J 224

 2026 P Cr. L J 224

[Sindh]

Before Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry and Tasneem Sultana, JJ

ILYAS IBRAHIM and others---Appellants

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Criminal Appeals Nos. 850 of 2024 and 142 of 2025, decided on 28th

August, 2025.

(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as

amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act

(XX of 2022)]---

----Ss. 6, 9(2), 9, 14 & 15---Possession of narcotic substances---

Appreciation of evidence----Benefit of doubt---Infirmities in

recovery proceedings---Prosecution case was that 4.160-kilograms

ICE-(methamphetamine) was recovered from the possession of

accused-appellants---Record transpired that the complainant,

during his testimony, asserted that from the possession of the

appellants he recovered four packing bags containing

methamphetamine-soaked pieces of white cloth concealed within

ten car seat covers and other automobile accessories/parts, under

the memo. of arrest and recovery, prepared in the presence of

mashirs---Noteworthy that during the examination-in-chief of

recovery witness, the prosecution did not produce the booking slip,

which constituted the basic document to prove the arrival of the

shipment from R-(Rawalpindi) Daewoo Cargo Service to K-(Karachi)

Daewoo Cargo Terminal; rather, said document was produced

through recovery witness during his cross-examination---Recovery

witness, when confronted regarding the packing material of the

subject shipment, professed unawareness as to whether the same

was packed in cartons or bags---Moreover, when questioned about

the number of pieces of narcotic-soaked cloth recovered, he was

unable to state the quantity---Both the said witnesses, during cross-

examination, conceded that the recovered packing bags bore

neither the name of the sender nor that of the recipient---Said

witnesses further admitted that neither before nor after the

recovery did they make any inquiry regarding the shipment from

the staff of the Daewoo Cargo Terminal, nor was any member of the

said cargo terminal staff examined during investigation---Perusal of

recovery memo further revealed that the memo of recovery was

silent regarding the recovery of any automobile accessories/parts---

Additionally, both the complainant and the mashir were unable to state how many pieces of white cloth soaked with

methamphetamine had been secured whether separately from each

car seat cover or collectively from the ten car seat covers---Appeal

against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as

amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act

(XX of 2022)]---

----Ss. 6, 9(2), 9, 14 & 15---Possession of narcotic substances---

Appreciation of evidence----Benefit of doubt---Defective

investigation---Prosecution case was that 4.160-kilograms ICE-

(methamphetamine) was recovered from the possession of accused-

appellants---Complainant also acted as an Investigating Officer in

the case; however, he failed to examine any member of the staff of

the Daewoo Cargo Terminal at K-(Karachi) or at R-(Rawalpindi) from

where the alleged shipment was booked---Another noteworthy

aspect of the prosecution case was its claim that the subject

shipment was dispatched from R-(Rawalpindi) and arrived at the

Daewoo Cargo Terminal, K-(Karachi)---Nevertheless, after the

alleged recovery of ICE-(methamphetamine)-soaked cloth pieces, the

complainant/Investigating Officer did not offer any explanation as

to why the packing material or packing bags of the said shipment

was not seized and produced during the trial, so as to demonstrate

that the alleged recovery of white cloth pieces soaked with ICE-

(methamphetamine) was indeed effected from the shipment that

had arrived at the Daewoo Cargo Terminal, K-(Karachi)---

Investigating Officer, at the time of the alleged recovery of narcotic-

soaked cloth, also claimed to have seized a motorcycle, which was

allegedly used by the appellants---Surprisingly, that motorcycle was

never produced before the Trial Court as case property---Moreover,

no verification was undertaken from the relevant Excise and

Taxation Department to ascertain the ownership of the said

motorcycle---Such unexplained omission not only reflected a lapse

in investigation but also created a reasonable doubt in the prudent

mind regarding the veracity of the prosecution's claim of recovery,

particularly in view of the stringent requirements of proof

mandated under the Act, 1997---Appeal against conviction was

allowed, in circumstances.

(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as amended

by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of

2022)]---

----Ss. 6, 9(2), 9, 14 & 15---Possession of narcotic substances---

Appreciation of evidence----Benefit of doubt---Non-production of

packing material and bags---Consequential---Prosecution case was that 4.160-kilograms ICE-(methamphetamine) was recovered from

the possession of accused-appellants---Omission on the part of the

complainant/Investigating Officer further weakened the

prosecution's case, as the non-seizure and non-production of the

original packing material or packing bags deprived in establishing a

link that the recovered methamphetamine-soaked cloth was in fact

part of the shipment alleged to have arrived from R-(Rawalpindi)---

The packing material, bearing possible identification marks, details

of the sender, or shipment particulars, could have served as tangible

corroboration connecting the recovered contraband to the alleged

consignment---Absence of said material, without any plausible

explanation, casted a serious shadow on the reliability of the

recovery proceedings and the prosecution narrative as a whole---

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

(d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as

amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act

(XX of 2022)]---

----Ss. 6, 9(2), 9, 14 & 15---Possession of narcotic substances---

Appreciation of evidence----Benefit of doubt---Exact weight of the

recovered substances not determined---Consequential---Prosecution

case was that 4.160-kilograms ICE-(methamphetamine) was

recovered from the possession of accused-appellants---Alleged

recovered methamphetamine-soaked fabric weighing 4.160

kilograms was transmitted for analysis to the office of the Chemical

Examiner through Police Constable, who deposited the same

therein---However, it was regrettable to note that the Investigating

Officer did not request the Chemical Examiner to ascertain the net

weight of methamphetamine contained in the recovered pieces of

cloth soaked with methamphetamine---Mashirnama, as well as the

chemical report, did not indicate what quantity of

methamphetamine was present in the recovered fabric---In passing

sentence, the Trial Court too erroneously treated the entire weight

of the soaked fabric as the weight of the methamphetamine---In

other words, the prosecution failed to substantiate its claim through

flawless convincing and confidence-inspiring evidence, as was

mandated in cases prosecuted under the stringent provisions of the

Act, 1997---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

(e) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as

amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act

(XX of 2022)]---

----Ss. 6, 9(2), 9, 14 & 15---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342-

--Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence----

Benefit of doubt---Accused not confronted with material incriminating evidence---Grave procedural irregularity---Effect---

Prosecution case was that 4.160-kilograms ICE-(methamphetamine)

was recovered from the possession of accused-appellants---Record

showed that while recording the statements of the appellants under

S.342, Cr.P.C., the basic document i.e., (the booking slip) was not

confronted to the appellants during their statements under S.342,

Cr.P.C.---Said omission constituted a clear contravention of the

mandate of S.342, Cr.P.C., which obligated the Court to put to the

accused every piece of incriminating evidence appearing against

him, so as to enable him to explain the circumstances---Record

further reflected that the incriminating material regarding the

booking slip, as well as the presence and production of the pieces

ofnarcotic-soaked fabric during trial, were never specifically put to

the appellants---Moreover, the chemical report, along with its brief

analysis, was also not confronted to them during their examination

under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in

circumstances.

(f ) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 342---Examination of accused---Incriminating material not put

to the accused during his examination---Effect---Every piece of

incriminating evidence must be specifically put to the accused

during his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., failing which such

evidence cannot be used against him.

Muhammad Saddique v. The State 2018 SCMR 71 rel.

(g) Criminal trial---

----Conviction---Principle---Harsher the punishment prescribed, the

stricter the standard of proof required.

Ameer Zeb v. The State PLD 2012 SC 380 rel.

(h) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single or slightest doubt, if found

reasonable in the prosecution case, would be sufficient to entitle the

accused to its benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as

a matter of right.

Tajamal Hussain v. The State 2022 SCMR 1567; Sajjad Hussain v. The

State 2022 SCMR 1540; Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2022 SCMR 1527;

Kashif Ali v. The State 2022 SCMR 1515; Muhammad Ashraf v. The State

2022 SCMR 1328 and Khalid Mehmood v. The State 2022 SCMR 1148 rel.

(i) Criminal trial....

Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution must prove its case

against an accused beyond reasonable doubt---Any doubt arising

from the prosecution's own case must be resolved in favour of the

accused.

Ahmed Ali and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 781 rel.

Raheeluddin for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 2024).

Habib Ahmed, Special Prosecutor ANF for the State (in Criminal

Appeal No. 850 of 2024).

Asad Aftab Solangi, Special Prosecutor ANF for the State (in

Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2025).

Raheeluddin for Respondent (in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2025).

Dates of hearing: 14th and 16th, 2025.

JUDGMENT

TASNEEM SULTANA, J.---By this common Judgment, we intend to

dispose of aforementioned Criminal Appeals, as arisen out of the same

FIR, and have been heard together. Through these Criminal Appeals

the Appellants namely, Ilyas Ibrahim, Muhammad Talha and the

State/ANF have assailed the Judgment dated 14.12.2024, passed by the

learned Special Court-I of Control of Narcotic Substances at Karachi,

(Trial Court), in Special Case No.49 of 2023, arising out of FIR No.23 of

2023, under Sections 6, 9(2), 9, 14, 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances

(Amendment) Act, 2022, ("CNSA"), registered at Police Station ANF-

Korangi, Karachi, whereby the appellants Ilyas Ibrahim and Talha

were convicted under section 9(c) of CNSA and sentenced to suffer

Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,00,000/- (02

million) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer

Simple Imprisonment for one year more. However, the appellants

were extended the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C by the trial Court.

2. The ANF has also challenged the order passed by the learned trial

court on an application under Section 37 of CNSA, which was heard

and decided alongside the impugned judgment. The relevant portion

reads as follows:

"It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution, during trial,

had filed an application under section 37 of Control of Narcotic

Substances (Amended act 2022) Act 1997, notice whereof was

given to the accused persons and the learned SPP ANF for

assets, as well as the learned defence counsel were heard.

Although the prosecution has requested for forfeiture of assets

of accused Ilyas Ibrahim in this case, prosecution has failed to

pray on record any link to show that accused Ilyas Ibrahim has 

derived his assets from trafficking in narcotic substances, as

the accused Ilyas Ibrahim has been convicted for the very first

time. Nothing is brought on record to show that accused Ilyas

Ibrahim is a previous convict or a habitual offender. The

prosecution has failed to show any material on the basis of

which it can be inferred that accused Ilyas Ibrahim has derived

his entire assets from trafficking in narcotic substances.

Therefore, the application under section 37 of Control of

Narcotic Substances (Amendment Act 2022) Act 1997 is hereby

dismissed being without merit. Order accordingly"."

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.03.2023,

Inspector Muhammad Munir Abid of Police Station ANF Korangi,

Karachi, received secret information that a consignment of auto

parts, including cloth pieces impregnated with narcotic substance,

concealed inside ten car seat covers had been dispatched by one

Uzair from Rawalpindi to Muhammad Irfan at Karachi. It was further

disclosed that proprietor Muhammad Ilyas of Yes Courier Company

and his employee Talha accompanied by one Faheem, were to take

delivery of the said consignment from the Daewoo Bus Terminal, M.A.

Jinnah Road, Karachi, at about 1700 hours. Acting upon the said

information, the ANF team proceeded to the terminal at about 1600

hours and maintained discreet surveillance. At about 1700 hours,

Muhammad Ilyas and Talha arrived on motorcycle No. KJT-2180,

entered the cargo section, and shortly thereafter emerged carrying

the said consignment, whereupon they were apprehended by the ANF

raiding party. Upon preliminary inquiry, both accused confessed that

the consignment contained ICE (Methamphetamine) absorbed in

cloth concealed inside the seat covers, and further disclosed that co-

accused Faheem intended to send the same to Australia. In the

presence of mashirs ASI Shan Ali and H.C. Tahir Usman, the

complainant effected recovery of four packing bags containing ten

seat covers and other auto parts. Upon cutting open the seat covers,

cloth impregnated with methamphetamine was recovered, which,

upon weighing, was found to be 4.160 kilograms. The recovered

narcotics were sealed separately for chemical analysis, while the torn

seat covers and other accessories were also sealed separately. From

the personal search of accused Muhammad Ilyas, PKR 1,200/-, a

photocopy of Muhammad Irfan's CNIC, his own original CNIC, three

ATM cards, bank cheques, and a Samsung mobile phone were

recovered. From the personal search of accused Muhammad Talha,

PKR 1,100/-, the original CNIC of Muhammad Irfan, his own original

CNIC, a Daewoo booking slip, and Oppo mobile phone were

recovered. The motorcycle used by the accused was also taken into

custody. A memo of arrest and recovery was prepared on the spot, duly attested by the witnesses. FIR was thereafter lodged at Police

Station ANF Korangi.

4. After usual investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet under

section 173, Cr.P.C. against accused Illyas Ibrahim and Talha, showing

accused Muhammad Irfan as absconder with red ink. The case of

accused Ibrahim Illyas and Talha who were in custody, was bifurcated

from that of absconding accused Muhammad Irfan vide order dated

30.08.2023,

5. Having been supplied requisite documents as provided under

section 265-C, Cr. P.C., the Trial Court framed a formal charge against

the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

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

H.C. Tahir Usman examined at Ex.3, he produced memo of arrest and

recovery at Ex.3-A; PW-2 P.C. Yasir at Ex.4, he produced Roznamcha

entries Nos.5 and 9 at Ex.4-A, copies of Roznamcha entry Nos.7 and 10

at Ex.4-B and road certificate No.2116 at Ex.4-D; PW-3 complainant/

Inspector Munir Abid-at Ex.5, he produced entry No.9 at Ex.5-A, FIR at

Ex.5-B and chemical he examiner report at Ex.5-D; PW-4 SIP Qasim Ali

at Ex.6, he produced copy of entry No.224 of register No.XIX at Ex.5-A

and entry No.8 at Ex.6-B; and PW-5 A.S.I. Muhammad Ilyas at Ex-7, he

produced copy of Roznamcha entry No. 13 at Ex.7-A and copy of entry

No.22 of register No. 19 at Ex.7-8.

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

recorded at Ex. 9 and Ex. 10 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 incriminating was recovered from their

possession. They have also examined themselves on oath under

section 340(2) Cr.P.C. at Exs.12 and 13 respectively. Both the appellants

also examined witness Muhammad Ishaque Dahi at Ex.15 in their

defence.

8. Vide order dated 07.11.2024, learned trial Court called Abdul

Saleem Qadeer, the Director Laboratory and Chemical Examiner, as a

Court witness under Section 540 Cr.P.C. On 14.11.2024, he appeared

and examined at Ex.17.

9. The Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the

appellants as well as Special Prosecutor ANF convicted the appellants

and sentenced them, vide impugned judgment.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

learned trial Court failed to consider the material evidence brought on record and, as such, the impugned judgment is based on conjectures

and surmises; that the trial Court did not appreciate that the booking

slip in question did not contain details of the goods produced before

the Court as case property, and that the booking slip number was not

mentioned in the memo of recovery, the FIR, or the challan; that the

shipment in question was transported from Rawalpindi to Karachi

under the said booking slip, yet the evidence adduced by the

prosecution does not support its own case; that the prosecution

neither cited any cargo staff as witnesses nor produced CCTV footage

of the alleged time of recovery and arrest, despite the fact that the

entire premises of the Daewoo Cargo Office is covered by surveillance

cameras, nor was any video recording or photograph made by the

complainant, even though the memo of recovery reflects that the

complainant maintained surveillance for approximately half an hour,

that the prosecution did not produce any call data record to establish

link between the appellants and the sender, the receiver, or the staff of

the Daewoo Cargo Terminal; that the chemical analysis report, which

was received after a lapse of forty-five days, terming it ambiguous on

the ground that it did not specify the weight of the alleged

methamphetamine and only reflected the gross weight of the

recovered cloth pieces, contrary to the prosecution's claim; that the

Chemical Examiner, during his testimony, admitted that the laboratory

lacked the requisite machinery, apparatus, and manpower to segregate

the alleged chemical from the cloth pieces impregnated with

methamphetamine; that the trial Court, without applying its judicial

mind and by ignoring the evidence available on record, convicted the

appellants without proper appreciation of the evidence.

11. Conversely, Mr. Habib Ahmed, learned Special Prosecutor ANF in

Criminal No.850/2024 has faithfully defended the impugned judgment

being based on proper appreciation of evidence.

12. Whereas, Mr. Asad Aftab Solangi, learned Special Prosecutor

ANF, appearing on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.142

of 2025, contended that during the course of inquiry, assets of

Appellant No.1, namely bank accounts and an insurance policy, were

traced; that the ANF, through Inspector Erum Yaqoob of the AFI

Branch, Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force, Sindh, being an

authorized officer, issued an assets freezing order dated 16.11.2023

under subsections (2) and (3) of Section 37 of the CNSA; that an

application under Section 37 of the CNSA was filed for confirmation of

the aforesaid freezing order, that the prosecution had successfully

proved its case, and despite convicting and sentencing Appellant No.1

to life imprisonment along with a fine, the learned trial Court illegally

and unlawfully declined the request of the ANF for forfeiture of the assets of Appellant No.1 and dismissed the application under Section

37 of CNSA.

13. Conversely, the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal

Appeal No.850 of 2024, who is also the respondent in Criminal Appeal

No.142 of 2025, has supported the findings of the learned trial Court

insofar as they relate to the dismissal of the freezing order. He

contended that Appellant No.1 has been engaged in the courier service

business for the past twenty years, initially in partnership with his

brother and subsequently by establishing his own business under the

name and style of Yes Courier Service; that the assets of Appellant No.1

were lawfully acquired through his legitimate business activities,

whereas the claim of the ANF rests upon a fake and fictitious booking

slip; that in view of above Appeal No.142 of 2025 may be dismissed.

14. We have heard learned counsel for appellants as well as learned

special prosecutor ANF and peruse the material available on record

with their able assistance.

15. On reappraisal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it

appears that on 28.03.2023, PW-3 Inspector Munir Abid (Ex.5) after

receiving spy information acting upon said information, he

accompanied by the raiding party, reached the terminal and

maintained surveillance. Shortly thereafter, the appellants entered the

Daewoo Cargo Terminal and, after some time, emerged carrying the

aforementioned consignment, whereupon PW-3 Inspector Munir Abid

of ANF apprehended them. Upon inspection, four packing bags

containing ten seat covers and automobile parts/accessories were

recovered, and on further examination, 4.160 kilograms of

methamphetamine-soaked cloth was found concealed within the seat

covers and prepared the memo of arrest and recovery (Ex.3/A). Certain

personal belongings were also seized, including the original CNIC of

Muhammad Irfan and the Daewoo booking slip.

16. Before proceeding further, we consider it appropriate to observe

that, from the defence perspective, the provisions of the CNSA are

stringent in nature. On the one hand, by virtue of the exclusion of

Section 103, Cr.P.C., the testimony of police officials is placed on the

same footing as that of any other witness, rendering them competent

witnesses for the purposes of law. On the other hand, by necessary

implication of Section 29 of the CNSA, the burden upon. the

prosecution to prove its case is not made heavier than under the

ordinary criminal law, while the offences created under the Act carry

punishments on the higher side. Consequently, an accused charged

under such provisions is often left with a limited scope to construct his

defence. The complexity is further compounded by the reality that, on

certain occasions, innocent persons may be falsely implicated in cases under the CNSA, either on account of suspicion or due to nefarious

designs orchestrated by motivated quarters. For these reasons, the

record of such cases demands circumspect and careful scrutiny by the

Courts. In order to sustain a conviction, the prosecution is generally

expected to establish, inter alia, a flawless recovery of the narcotic

substance, doubt-free transmission of the complaint from the place of

recovery to the police station for registration of the FIR,

unimpeachable safe custody of the recovered narcotics, secure and

documented transmission of the same to the office of the chemical

examiner, and, above all, the proof that the recovered substance was

indeed of a narcotic nature.

17. In the above backdrop, we have meticulously examined the

record of the case and it transpires that PW-3, the complainant, during

his testimony, asserted that from the possession of the appellants he

recovered four packing bags containing methamphetamine-soaked

pieces of white cloth concealed within ten car seat covers and other

automobile accessories/parts, under the memo of arrest and recovery

(Ex.3/A), prepared in the presence of mashirs ASI Shan Ali and HC

Tahir Usman. It is, however, noteworthy that during the examination-

in-chief of PW-1, the prosecution did not produce the booking slip

(Ex.3/B), which constitutes the basic document to prove the arrival of

the shipment from Rawalpindi Daewoo Cargo Service to Karachi

Daewoo Cargo Terminal; rather, the said document was produced

through PW-1 during his cross-examination. It is further observed that

PW-1, who acted as mashir of recovery, when confronted regarding

the packing material of the subject shipment, professed unawareness

as to whether the same was packed in cartons or bags. Moreover,

when questioned about the number of pieces of narcotics-soaked cloth

recovered, he was unable to state the quantity. It is also significant to

note that both the above PWs, during cross-examination, conceded

that the recovered packing bags bore neither the name of the sender

nor that of the recipient. They further admitted that neither before nor

after the recovery did they make any inquiry regarding the shipment

from the staff of the Daewoo Cargo Terminal, M.A. Jinnah Road,

Karachi, nor was any member of the said cargo terminal staff

examined during investigation. A perusal of Ex.3/A further reveals that

the memo of recovery is silent regarding the recovery of any

automobile accessories/parts. Additionally, both the complainant and

the mashir were unable to state how many pieces of white cloth

soaked with methamphetamine had been secured whether separately

from each car seat cover or collectively from the ten car seat covers.

18. Likewise, the inability of the recovery mashir to state with

certainty the nature of the packing material or the quantity of

narcotics-soaked fabric recovered, together with the admitted absence of any identification marks of the sender or recipient on the recovered

packing bags, casts further doubt upon the integrity of the recovery

proceedings. The omission to make any inquiry from, or record

statements of, the Daewoo Cargo Terminal staff, who were the most

natural and independent witnesses to the booking, arrival, and

delivery of the shipment, constitutes a serious lapse in investigation,

depriving the prosecution of potentially corroborative evidence. The

silence of the recovery memo (Ex.3/A) regarding the recovery of

automobile accessories/parts, despite the complainant's claim of their

seizure, further reflects inconsistency in the prosecution case. These

cumulative omissions and contradictions, when viewed together,

adversely affect the evidentiary value of the recovery proceedings and

warrant a cautious approach in placing reliance thereon for sustaining

a conviction.

19. It is further observed that the complainant, Inspector Munir

Abid, also acted as an Investigating Officer in the case; however, he

failed to examine any member of the staff of the Daewoo Cargo

Terminal at Karachi or at Rawalpindi from where the alleged

shipment was booked. Another noteworthy aspect of the prosecution

case is its claim that the subject shipment was dispatched from

Rawalpindi and arrived at the Daewoo Cargo Terminal, M.A. Jinnah

Road, Karachi. Nevertheless, after the alleged recovery of

methamphetamine-soaked cloth pieces, the complainant/I.O. did not

offer any explanation as to why the packing material or packing bags

of the said shipment was not seized and produced during the trial, so

as to demonstrate that the alleged recovery of white cloth pieces

soaked with methamphetamine was indeed effected from the

shipment that had arrived at the Daewoo Cargo Terminal, M.A.

Jinnah Road, Karachi. It may further be observed that PW-3 Inspector

Munir Abid, at the time of the alleged recovery of narcotic-soaked

cloth, also claimed to have seized a motorcycle bearing Registration

No. CD-70, KJT-2180, which was allegedly used by the appellants.

Surprisingly, this motorcycle was never produced before the trial

court as case property. Moreover, no verification was undertaken

from the relevant excise and taxation department to ascertain the

ownership of the said motorcycle. This unexplained omission not

only reflects a lapse in investigation but also creates a reasonable

doubt in the prudent mind regarding the veracity of the prosecution's

claim of recovery, particularly in view of the stringent requirements

of proof mandated under the CNSA.

20. This omission on the part of the complainant/I.O. further

weakens the prosecution's case, as the non-seizure and non-production

of the original packing material or packing bags deprives in

establishing a link that the recovered methamphetamine-soaked cloth was in fact part of the shipment alleged to have arrived from

Rawalpindi the packing material, bearing possible identification

marks, details of the sender, or shipment particulars, could have

served as tangible corroboration connecting the recovered contraband

to the alleged consignment; its absence, without any plausible

explanation, casts a serious shadow on the reliability of the recovery

proceedings and the prosecution narrative as a whole.

21. Additionally, Exhibit 3/B, i.e., the booking slip, on its face gives

rise to doubt regarding its authenticity. Firstly, the said booking slip

pertains to ten packages, and a separate barcode is allotted for each

package, with the total weight recorded as 65. However, the booking

slip does not bear the signature or stamp of the cargo company to

indicate that it was in fact issued by the booking clerk or any other

authorised staff member of the Daewoo Terminal, Rawalpindi.

Furthermore, Exhibit 3/B consists of two parts namely, the booking

slip/sales tax invoice and the customer copy. The mode of payment is

reflected as "cash on delivery, yet the document does not specify the

amount, if any, paid at the Daewoo Cargo Terminal, Karachi, towards

service charges.

22. These deficiencies in Exhibit 3/B materially affect its

evidentiary worth. In the absence of any signature or official stamp

of the issuing authority, there is no reliable assurance that the

document originated from the Daewoo Terminal, Rawalpindi.

Likewise, the omission to specify the amount allegedly paid at the

Karachi terminal in respect of service charges renders the "cash on

delivery" notation incomplete and ambiguous. When such a

document is relied upon as the primary proof to establish the

movement of the alleged consignment from Rawalpindi to Karachi, its

authenticity must be free from suspicion. No receipt was recovered

from the Appellants to suggest that they made payment to Daewoo for

taking delivery of the shipment. The lack of essential particulars,

coupled with the absence of corroboration from any member of the

cargo company's staff, undermines its credibility and diminishes its

value as independent evidence linking the recovered narcotics to the

alleged shipment.

23. It may be observed that the alleged recovered

methamphetamine-soaked fabric weighing 4.160 kg was transmitted

for analysis to the office of the chemical examiner through PW-2, PC

Yasir, who deposited the same therein. However, it is regrettable to

note that the Investigating Officer did not request the chemical

examiner to ascertain the net weight of methamphetamine contained

in the recovered pieces of cloth soaked with methamphetamine. The

mashirnama, as well as the chemical report (Ex.5/0), do not indicate what quantity of methamphetamine was present in the recovered

fabric. In passing sentence, the trial court too erroneously treated the

entire weight of the soaked fabric as the weight of the

methamphetamine. In other words, the prosecution failed to

substantiate its claim through flawless, convincing, and confidence-

inspiring evidence, as is mandated in cases prosecuted under the

stringent provisions of the CNSA.

24. On the other hand, the defence, during cross-examination,

challenged the prosecution witnesses by asserting that Appellant No.1

had refused to act as a spy informer for the ANF and was, therefore,

falsely implicated. It was alleged that the appellants were, in fact,

arrested from the office of Appellant No. 1, and that the Investigating

Officer seized the CCTV cameras and DVRs from the said office. In

their statements recorded under Sections 342 and 340(2), Cr.P.C., the

appellants categorically denied their arrest from outside the Daewoo

Cargo Terminal, M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, or any recovery of

narcotics-soaked fabric from a shipment.

25. Appellant No.1, in his statement under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C.,

deposed that he was the proprietor of a courier company operating

under the name and style of Yes Courier Service. He further stated that

on 28.04.2023, one Ahsanullah Khan, resident near Taj Complex,

booked a parcel containing books and clothes for shipment to Lahore.

According to him, when he sent his rider (Appellant No.2) to pick the

said parcel, Appellant No.2 returned to the office accompanied by four

or five persons who disconnected the CCTV cameras, began

unwrapping parcels lying in the office, and, upon inquiry, introduced

themselves as ANF officials. He stated that they took away the DVR, his

wallet, and then escorted both appellants to Police Station ANF

Korangi. He also produced the courier receipt in the name of shipper

Ahsanullah (Ex.12/A) in support of his stance. The statement of

Appellant No.2 under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., was consistent with the

statement of Appellant No. 1.

26. It is, however, surprising to note that while recording the

statements of the appellants under Section 342, Cr.P.C., the learned

trial Court, in questions No.2 to No.5, made reference to several

exhibits, including Ex.3/A, Ex.4/A, Ex.4/B, Ex.4/D, Ex.5/A, Ex.5/B, and

Ex.5/D; however, the basic document i.e., Ex.3/B (the booking slip), was

not confronted to the appellants during their statements under Section

342, Cr.P.C. This omission constitutes a clear contravention of the

mandate of Section 342, Cr.P.C., which obligates the Court to put to the

accused every piece of incriminating evidence appearing against him,

so as to enable him to explain the circumstances. The record further

reflects that the incriminating material regarding the booking slip, as well as the presence and production of the pieces of narcotics-soaked

fabric during trial, were never specifically put to the appellants.

Moreover, the chemical report, along with its brief analysis, was also

not confronted to them during their examination under Section 342,

Cr.P.C.

27. It is an established principle of law that any piece of

incriminating evidence must be specifically put to the accused during

his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C., failing which such evidence

cannot be used against him. This principle has been consistently

reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in numerous

pronouncements, including the landmark judgment in Muhammad

Saddique v. The State (2018 SCMR 71), which serves as guiding

authority on this issue.

28. It is further to be noted that under a stringent statute such as

CNSA, where capital punishment or imprisonment for life may be

awarded even on the basis of the testimony of police officials, it is

imperative for the prosecution to establish its case through reliable,

unimpeachable, and confidence-inspiring evidence, proving the

charge beyond any reasonable doubt. The settled principle is that the

harsher the punishment prescribed, the stricter the standard of proof

required. In this regard, guidance may be taken from the judgment of

the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ameer Zeb v. The State

(PLD 2012 SC 380), wherein it was observed:

"Punishments provided in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act,

1997 were quite stringent and long, if not harsh, and, thus, a

special care had to be taken that a court trying such an offence

had to be convinced that the entire quantity allegedly recovered

from the accused person's possession was indeed narcotic

substance. We, reverently and respectfully, tend to agree with

the latter view and would like to add that the rule of thumb for

safe administration of criminal justice is: 'The harsher the

sentence the stricter the standard of proof."

(Underling is provided by us for emphasis.)

In the said Ameer Zeb case, the Honourable Supreme Court further

emphasized:

"We may also observe that in such cases it is the accused person

who is at the receiving end of long and stringent punishments

and, thus, safeguards from his point of view ought not to be

allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of mere comfort or

convenience of the prosecution." 29. Even otherwise, it is well settled that for the purposes of

extending the benefit of doubt to an accused, it is not necessary that

there be multiple infirmities in the prosecution case or several

circumstances creating doubt, A single or slightest doubt, if found

reasonable, in the prosecution case would be sufficient to entitle the

accused to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a

matter of right. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the cases

reported as Tajamal Hussain v. The State (2022 SCMR 1567), Sajjad

Hussain v. The State (2022 SCMR 1540), Abdul Ghafoor v. The State

(2022 SCMR 1527 SC), Kashif Ali v. The State (2022 SCMR 1515),

Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2022 SCMR 1328) and Khalid

Mehmood v. The State (2022 SCMR 1148).

30. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the

prosecution must prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable

doubt, and any doubt arising from the prosecution's own case must be

resolved in favour of the accused. Reliance is placed on Ahmed Ali and

another v. The State 2023 SCMR 781, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held:

"Even the slightest doubt, if found reasonable, is sufficient to entitle

the accused to acquittal-not as a matter of grace, but as a matter

of right."

31. The chemical examiner's report fails to mention the net

extractable weight. These omissions and contradictions create

substantial doubt regarding the genuineness and transparency of the

recovery proceedings. Under the stringent framework of the CNSA,

where the law demands strict compliance with procedural safeguards

and the highest standard of proof due to the severity of punishments

prescribed, such lapses cannot be treated as minor irregularities.

Instead, they directly impair the prosecution's ability to establish its

case through unimpeachable, confidence-inspiring evidence.

32. In view of the foregoing discussion, our reappraisal of the entire

evidence on record has revealed that the prosecution was not able to

prove beyond reasonable doubt that the subject cloth pieces

impregnated with methamphetamine concealed inside seat covers

were seized from the possession of the Appellants.

33. Accordingly, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants,

Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2024 is allowed. The conviction and

sentence recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 14-

12-2024 are hereby set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of the

charge. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other

custody case. 34. Upon acquittal of the Appellants, Appeal No.142 of 2025 by ANF

for the forfeiture of properties of the Appellant No.1, becomes

infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.

JK/I-29/Sindh Order accordingly.