25/04/2026
نوجوان وکلاء کیلئے جو منشیات پریکٹس میں دلچسپی رکھتے ہیں
پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے منشیات مقدمہ میں گاڑی ڈرائیور کی عمر قید کی سزا کالعدم کرتے ہوئے بری کرتے ہوئے قرار دیا ہے کہ گاڑی کے خفیہ خانوں میں سے 98کلوگرام چرس اور 48کلوگرام افیون برآمدگی پر ڈرائیور گاڑی کو بری کرتے ہوئے قرار دیا ہے کہ منشیات کے مقدمات میں استغاثہ کے لیے ثبوت کے معیار اور چین آف )CHAIN OF CUSTODY( "کسٹڈی کے حوالے سے ایک سنگ میل کی حیثیت رکھتا ہے۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا ہے کہ محض زبانی گواہی یا لیبارٹری کی مثبت رپورٹ ملزم کو سزا دینے کے لیے کافی نہیں، جب تک کہ دستاویزی ریکارڈ سے یہ ثابت نہ ہو کہ مالِ مقدمہ/نموناجات ہر مرحلے پر محفوظ تحویل میں رہیں اور کوئی شک و شبہ کا امکان موجود نہیں نموناجات میں ٹمپرنگ ہوئی ہیں
IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR [JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTI
Cr.A No. 1100-P/2025
Manzoor Khan...Appellant
Vs
The State.....Respondent
Present:
Ms. Zohra Durrani, advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Tariq Kakar, Special Prosecutor, ANF.
Date of hearing:
09.04.2026
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J.- Through this appeal, appellant namely Manzoor Khan son of Rab Ullah Khan has called in question the order and judgment of his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court CNS-I, Peshawar dated 22.10.2025, vide which appellant was convicted under Section 9 (d) of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I) for life along with fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (One Million) and in default of payment of fine, appellant has further to suffer simple imprisonment (S.I) for a period of six (06) months. The appellant was also found guilty of the offence under section 473 PPC, whereby, he was convicted and sentenced to three (03) years' imprisonment with fine of Rupees Fifty Thousand (Rs. 50,000/-) or in default of payment, he has to suffer further one (01) month imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.PC was extended to the appellant.
2. After completion of investigation, complete challan was submitted before the Court on 18.10.2022. The appellant then accused was summoned by the learned trial Court and charge was framed against him on 30.03.2023, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution was invited to produce its evidence, who accordingly examined as many as six (06) witnesses in support of the case. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under section 342 Cr.PC and on conclusion of the trial in the case, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Special Court CNS-I, Peshawar vide the impugned order/ judgment dated 22.10.2025. The appellant has now challenged the aforesaid judgment by filing the instant appeal before this Court.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Special Prosecutor, ANF were heard in considerable detail and the record perused with their able assistance.
4. It is the case of prosecution as set by the Seizing Officer/Complainant namely Shafqat Mumtaz in the Murasila (Ex.P.W/2) to the effect that on 21.03.2022, he received information that inter-provincial drug smuggler namely Manzoor Khan (appellant herein) would smuggle a huge quantity of narcotics in a motorcar from Nowshera through G.T road to Rawalpindi and acting upon the said information, he constituted a raiding party and laid a nakabandi at Hakeem Abad G.T Road. On arrival of the said vehicle, the same was stopped, the person sitting on the driving seat was deboarded, and who disclosed his name as Manzoor Khan, appellant herein and was inquired about the presence of narcotics in the motorcar. Initially, he hesitated, however, after sometime he admitted the presence of narcotics in various secret cavities made in different parts of the motorcar. On opening the said cavities, 80 packets Charas, each packet weighing 1000 grams, total 98 KGs, and 40 packets o***m, each packet weighing 1200 grams, total 48 KG were recovered. Out of the recovered Charas, 10/10 grams were separated for the purpose of FSL and then they were sealed in separate parcels No. 1 to 80, whereas, 10/10 grams O***m was also separated for the chemical analysis and sealed the same in parcels No. 81 to 120 by affixing a 2/2 monogram of "S.M" on each parcel. On further search of the motorcar, a registration book of the said vehicle was recovered. Similarly, on search of the accused, a CNIC in the name of the accused, amount of Rs. 2700/-, mobile phone with sim were also recovered. After fulfilling all the required formalities, recovery memo (Ex.PW 1/1) was prepared, card of arrest of the accused was issued and Murasila (Ex.P.W 1/2) was drafted and was handed over to constable Shan Iqbal (PW-4) for taking the same to the police station for registration of the FIR, hence, the instant FIR.
5. In narcotics cases, the prosecution is required to establish the mode and manner of the recovery, the preparation of the samples, the safe transmission of the samples from the spot to the police station, the safe custody within the police station and from the police station to the FSL, however, in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to establish on record the safe custody of samples within the police station and the safe transmission of the parcels containing samples and the case property from the police Station to the FSL, which is to be highlighted as under:-
6. It is the case of prosecution that the alleged recovery has been effected on 21.03.2022 at 2300 hours, whereas, the report of the incident has been lodged on 22.03.2022, at 0400 hours. It is also the case of prosecution as stated by P.W-1 namely Shafqat Mumtaz, Seizing Officer/Complainant that the process of recovery, its weighment, separation of samples, preparation of various parcels, drafting of Murasila (Ex.PW 1/2), issuance of card of arrest of the accused etc. were continued from 2300 hours of 21.03.2022 till 04:00 a.m. of 22.03.2022 i.e. for five (05) years and thereafter, he personally came to the police station and handed over the parcels containing samples and the case property to the Moharrir of police station, which apparently shows that the said articles/case property/documents were handed over to the Moharrir on 22.02.2022, however, the extract of Register No.19 available on file would show that these were received in the police station by the Moharrir on 23.03.2022, however, there is no explanation available on file that as to why the Seizing Officer/Complainant, P.W-1 namely, Shafqat Mumtaz did not deposit the said parcels/case property on 22.03.2022 and he kept the same into his custody for more than 36 hours when ultimately, the same were deposited on 23.02.2022.
7. Another damaging aspect of the prosecution case is that it has not been able to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of the parcels containing samples and the remaining case property within the police station as it is the case of prosecution that P.W-1 namely Shafqat Mumtaz came from the spot along with the parcels containing samples. He (P.W-1) handed over the same to the Moharrir of the police station, namely Farhat Fareed, ASI (PW-2), as reflects from his Court statement as P.W-1. The said Muharrir of the Police Station namely, Farhat Fareed, ASI appeared in the witness box as PW-2, and who has stated that he has received the parcels containing samples from the Seizing Officer/Complainant and further that he handed over the parcels containing samples to the cartier namely, Asad Zafar, P.W-3 for depositing the same in the FSL and thus, as per the prosecution case, the case property remained and ought to have been remained with the Seizing Officer and then with the Moharrir of the police station and ultimately, the parcels containing samples to the carrier for depositing the same to the FSL, however, as against this, the Moharrir of police station namely Farhat Fareed (PW-2) in his cross examination has stated as under:
to "It is correct that the form-I along with sample parcels were forwarded Inspector/SHO Zaigham Gillani. It is correct that I had not stated to the 1.0 that the form-I along with the sample parcels were forwarded to SHO concerned. It is correct that neither the sample parcels returned back with form-I to me nor the same was stated before the 1.0 by me."
The aforesaid admission by nobody else but by the Moharrir of the police station manifestly shows that the parcels containing samples were handed over to the SHO of police station namely Zaigham Gillani, who is neither the Seizing Officer nor he is the complainant nor he is the Investigation Officer of the case nor he was the member of the raiding party, therefore, there arise no occasion that as to why and for what purpose these parcels containing samples were handed over to him. Over and above, the statement of Moharrir of the police station namely Farhat Fareed (PW-2) that he handed over the parcels containing samples to Zaigham Gillani (SHO) but the same have not been brought back to him, which casts serious doubt on the safe custody of the parcels containing samples as under the normal circumstances parcels are deposited by the Seizing Officer or by a member of the raiding party with the Moharrir who keeps the same in the Malkhana in his safe custody and then, it is the Moharrir who handover the parcels containing samples to the carrier but in this case, a totally alien procedure has been adopted, whereby, the Moharrir has handed over the parcels containing samples to a totally irrelevant person, who was having no role in the case of prosecution except to submit complete challan being SHO of the police station.
8. Another damaging aspect which also casts a serious doubt over the safe custody of the parcels containing samples is that it is the case of prosecution as stated by P.W-1, the Seizing Officer/Complainant that after return from the spot, he handed over all the parcels containing samples to the Moharrir, which he deposited the same in Malkhana of the police station. It is further the case of prosecution that since in this case, the Seizing Officer has also acted as 1.0 and that he has only produced the remaining case property to the Judicial Magistrate at the time of seeking custody of the accused on 24.03.2022, however, in his cross-examination, he has made the following admission.
"It is correct that on dated 24.03.2022, I forwarded the samples parcels to SHO namely Zaigham Gillani. It is correct that the SHO, Zaigham Gillani was not the LO of the case. It is also correct that I have not recorded the statement of the said SHO in this regard. It is also correct that I did not mention this fact in the whole file that how much time the samples parcels were in his custody."
10 In view of the above admission by the Seizing Officer-cum-Investigation Officer cuts the very prosecution case at its roots as on one hand, he has stated in his examination-in-chief that he deposited all the parcels samples with the Moharrir of police station on 23.03.2022 and on the other, he stated that he handed over all the parcels samples to the SHO namely, Zaigham Gillani on 24.03.2022, and in this regard too, there is no explanation available on file nor the same reflects from the register No. 19 that the Seizing Officer/I.O has received parcels samples from the Moharrir and then handed over the same to the SHO, Zaigham Gillani. Similarly, there is also no explanation that why all these samples were handed over to the SHO, Zaigham Gillani and thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the safe custody of the parcels containing samples and as such, no legal worth could be attached to the FSL report, whereof, it has been reported that the parcels were containing Charas and O***m.
9. In the recent past there is a judicial consensus that the prosecution has to prove safe transmission and safe custody of the contraband/samples and the heinousness of the charge and recovery of huge quantity would not absolve the prosecution of such duty. In the case of it was held by the Apex Court that it is duty of the prosecution to establish each and every step from the stage of recovery, making of
"Javed Iqbal v/s the State" reported as 2023 SCMR 139 sample parcels, safe custody of sample parcels and transmission of the sample parcels to the concerned laboratory. Such chain has to be established by the prosecution and if any link is missing in such like offences the benefit must be extended to the accused. Similarly, in the case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that neither the safe custody nor the safe transmission of the sealed sample parcels to the concerned Forensic Science Laboratory was established by the prosecution because neither the Moharrir nor the Constable who deposited the sample parcels in the concerned laboratory was produced. Similarly, in the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that recovery was affected on 03.07.2015, whereas the sample parcels were received in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 15.07.2015 through a police constable, but the said constable was never produced by the prosecution to establish the safe transmission of the sample parcels to the concerned laboratory and there was no explanation as to why such evidence was withheld. Due to such defect on the part of the prosecution it could not be held with any
11
"Muhammad Hazir vs. The State" reported as 2023 SCMR 986. "Lal Jan vs. The State" reported as 2023 SCMR 1009. degree of certainty that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the accused person beyond any reasonable doubt. Likewise, in the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that although Jahangir Khan, H.C. (PW-1) claimed that complainant had handed over the sample parcels to him which he further handed over to Moharrar Investigation for safe custody for sending them to Forensic Science Laboratory, Peshawar. The said Moharrar Investigation who according to Jahangir Khan, H.C. (PW-1) kept the sample parcels in safe custody was never produced by the prosecution. So, the safety of sample parcels was not established by the prosecution. Ajmal Khan, Constable, who allegedly took the sample parcels to the concerned Laboratory was also not produced. In that eventuality, prosecution failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the sample parcels to the concerned quarter and the prosecution could not give any plausible explanation for not producing said important witnesses. The said defect in the prosecution case goes into the root of the case creating serious doubt regarding the narcotics and its recovery. In the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the most important thing we observe is that neither the safe custody nor the safe transmission of the sealed sample parcels to the concerned laboratory was established by the prosecution because neither the Moharrar nor the Constable concerned (FC-3746) who deposited the said parcels in the concerned laboratory was produced. It is also a circumstance that recovery was effected on 17.07.2010 whereas the sample parcels were received in the said laboratory on 20.07.2010 and prosecution is silent as to where remained these sample parcels during this period, meaning thereby that the element of tampering with is quite apparent in this case. In the case of "Abdul Ghafoor v/s The State & another" reported as 2022 SCMR 819, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that heinousness of the charge and huge quantity of the alleged contraband, notwithstanding, the prosecution was under a bounden responsibility to drive home the charge by proving each limb of its case that essentially included production of the witness, tasked with the responsibility of transmitting the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner. Failure is devastatingly appalling with unredeemable consequences that cast away the entire case. Reliance could also be made on the following judgments;-
i. "Said Wazir and another v/s The State and others" reported as 2023 SCMR 1144.
ii. "Zafar Khan and another v/s The State" reported as 2022 SCMR 864.
iii. "Subhan Ullah v/s The State" reported as 2022 SCMR 1052.
iv. "Akhtar Gul v/s The State" reported as 2022 SCMR 1627.
v. "Qaiser and another v/s The State" reported as 2022 SCMR 1641.
vi. "Shah Zameen v/s The State" reported as 2022 SCMR 2149.
10. For what has been discussed above, this Court is of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, his conviction cannot be maintained. Resultantly, while extending him the benefit of the doubt this appeal is allowed and the impugned order/ judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.10.2025 recorded by the learned trial Court is set aside and consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against. him. He be released forthwith from the Jail, if not required in any other case.
Above are the detail reasons of our short order of even date.
