2026 P Cr. L J 85

 2026 P Cr. L J 85

[Balochistan]

Before Iqbal Ahmed Kasi and Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen, JJ

HAZAR KHAN---Appellant

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2025, decided on 7th August, 2025.

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

amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act

(XX of 2022)]---

----S. 9(2), Sr. No.9---Police Rules 1934, Chapter XXV, R. 25.2(3)---Police

Order (22 of 2002), Art. 18---Possession and transportation of narcotic

Substances---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant as Investigating

Officer---Prosecution case was that 07-kilogram Methamphetamine

(ICE) was recovered from the possession of accused---Record showed

that the alleged contraband was recovered from the possession of the

accused/appellant by Police Officer who served as the Seizing Officer,

complainant and Investigating Officer in case, giving him a three-in-

one role---According to the law, the complainant and the accused

were two opposing parties---Role of an Investigating Officer was to

serve as an objective authority with the goal of uncovering the truth--

-An Investigating Officer could not be part of or a member of any

party involved in the case they were investigating---Language of the

Police Rules, 1934 required an Investigating Officer not to

prematurely form an opinion on the facts, whether for or against any

person, as this was impossible for an Investigating Officer who was

also a party---Concept of honest investigation relied on impartiality

and neutrality---Reason for separating the investigation wing from

the operational wing of the police also stems from that principle, as

reflected in Art.18 of the Police Order 2002; therefore, the element of

honest, transparent and fair investigation was absent in the case---If

that 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 was the fundamental right of the accused---Appeal

against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

The State v. Waris Khan 2016 MLD 920 and Saqib Ramzan v. The

State and another 2023 PCr.LJ 1479 rel.

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

amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act (XX of 2022)]---

----S. 9(2), Sr. No.9---Possession and transportation of narcotic

Substances---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of the

recovered narcotic substance not proved---Prosecution case was

that 07-kilogram Methamphetamine (ICE) was recovered from the

possession of accused---Complainant and the Investigation Officer

in the case 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, complainant did not

name the Moharrar of the Malkhana to whom he handed over the

parcels---Very stringent punishments had been provided under the

provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; therefore,

the provisions of the Act, 1997, were to be strictly construed---

Prosecution in such cases was bound to prove its case beyond a

reasonable doubt and the benefit of even the slightest doubt in the

case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, was to be

extended to the accused---In cases under Control of Narcotic

Substances 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 those parcels to the relevant

laboratory---Prosecution must establish that chain; if any link was

missing, the benefit must be given to the accused---Prosecution

witness produced a copy of Registered No. XIX, however, a review

of it revealed that it had not been appropriately maintained---No

entry was made regarding the recovery of the alleged items from

the appellant's possession nor did it specify who received the

articles and when Columns 5 of Register No. XIX stated 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, copy of register XIX did not support the prosecution's case

in that regard, as columns 6 and 7 of Register No. XIX showed that

no responsible officer had signed to verify the entry and removal of

the narcotic in question, including the sample parcels---Therefore, it

was clear that the case property was not kept in safe custody, as

column 05 was blank---As a result, the prosecution had

compromised the safe custody and transfer of the alleged items---

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Ameer Zeb v. The State PLD 2012 SC 380; Asif Ali v. The State 2024

SCMR 1408; Javed Iqbal v. The State 2023 SCMR 139 and Ahmed Ali v.

The State 2023 SCMR 781 rel.

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

amended by Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act

(XX of 2022)] S. 9(2), Sr. Nos. 9 & 20---Police Rules, 1934, R. 22.49(n)---

Possession and transportation of narcotic Substances---Appreciation

of evidence---Search warrant not obtained---Prosecution case was

that 07-kilogram Methamphetamine (ICE) was recovered from the

possession of accused---Prosecution's case relied on prior

information and that too within the Court's timings---However, the

complainant neither attempted to obtain search warrants as

required by S.20 of the Act, 1997, nor provided any reason for not

complying with S.20 of the Act, 1997---Similarly, the prior

information was never recorded in Register No.II, as mandated by

Rule 22.49(n) of Police Rules, 1934---Appeal against conviction was

allowed, in circumstances.

Zain Shahid v. The State 2024 SCMR 843 rel.

(d) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance that created

reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt

entitled him to that benefit, not as a matter of grace but as a matter

of right.

Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel.

Barrister Amir Muhammad Lehri for Appellant.

Habib-ur-Rehman Baloch, Special Prosecutor ANF for the State.

Date of hearing: 22nd July, 2025.

JUDGMENT

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.