09/02/2026
PLD 2026 Lahore 47
منشیات مقدمات میں نموناجات اور مال مقدمہ کو موقع پر پارسل ہائے میں مخفوظ طرح سے سیل کرنا اور موقع سے پولیس سٹیشن اور لیبارٹری اور ٹرائل کورٹ میں ایگزیبٹ کرنے تک ہر قدم کو زبانی طور پر اور ڈوکومنڑری طور
chain of safe
custody' ثابت/
قائم کرنا قانوناً ضروری ہے۔ ملزم کو اس کے بارے میں پوچھے بغیر سزا نہیں دی جاسکتی۔اس مخفوظ کسٹڈی کے بابت بیان ملزم میں سوال کے طور پر ملزم کے سامنے رکھنا ضروری ہے
PLD 2026 Lahore 47
Accuse was not confronted with the fact that a sample had been separated from the bulk quantity of narcotic recovered, sealed into a parcel, nor with the fact that it was sent to the police station for storage in the storeroom. Furthermore, the appellant was not confronted with the vital details concerning the exact date on which the parcel was dispatched to the forensic lab, nor was he put the identity of the witness who carried and deposited the parcel there.
Thus, the accused was not duly confronted with the chain of safe custody. In our criminal jurisprudence governing narcotic cases, maintaining an unbroken chain of safe custody is the backbone of proving a case against the accused. Without this chain intact, the case risks falling apart at the seams, as the integrity of the evidence stands in question. If the accused has not been duly confronted with the chain of safe custody while examining him under Section 342 of the Code, the same cannot be wielded to secure his conviction.
We are unequivocally convinced that it was the prosecution‟s duty to establish an unbroken chain of custody with clear and compelling evidence, leaving no room for doubt, and equally crucial was the obligation of the trial court to confront the appellant with the same during his examination under Section 342 of the Code. The trial court‟s handling of this crucial step leaves much to be desired. To say the least, it was perfunctory, cursory, superficial, and fell woefully short of the requisite standard as mandated by Section 342 of the Code. Without confronting the appellant with this crucial piece of incriminating evidence, i.e. the chain of safe custody, the foundation of the case collapses, leaving no choice but to acquit him.
Crl. Appeal No.24404/2019
(Qaiser alias Aaun vs. The State & another)
A clear understanding of the scope and purpose of Section 342 of the Code is essential to properly assess whether the mandatory procedural requirements have been adhered to and whether the appellant‟s rights have been duly safeguarded.
The purpose of examining an accused under Section 342 of the Code is clearly articulated within the provision itself. It lays down the purpose as to “enable the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.” Section 342 of the Code directly correlates with the principle of audi alteram partem, one of the foundational principles of natural justice. The term “audi alteram partem” translates to “hear the other side” or “let no person be condemned unheard”. This principle safeguards the fundamental right that no individual shall face punishment or adverse judgment without being afforded a fair opportunity to present his case and challenge the evidence laid against him. This examination serves as a crucial safeguard, allowing the accused a direct opportunity to confront and clarify any incriminating material and circumstances that have emerged during the trial. It offers an accused a vital opportunity to present his defense, ensuring that no adverse conclusions are drawn without first considering his perspective. This reflects the very essence of justice and fairness, safeguarding the rights of the accused and upholding the integrity of the judicial process.
Under Section 342 of the Code, there are two distinct forms of examination. The first may occur at any stage during the inquiry or trial and is discretionary in nature. To allow the accused to explain any incriminating circumstances arising from the evidence, the court may, at any stage of an inquiry or trial and without prior notice, pose questions it deems necessary. It is particular and optional, giving the court the flexibility to engage with the accused when specific issues arise, and clarification is required. In contrast, the second form of examination is conducted after the prosecution witnesses have been examined but before the accused is called upon to present his defense. This examination is general and mandatory, requiring the trial court to give the accused a formal opportunity to explain the entirety of the incriminating evidence presented against him. It ensures that the accused is fully aware of the case he must meet and provides a critical opportunity for him to offer any explanations or rebuttals before the defense is presented. Section 342 of the Code safeguards the rights of the accused and upholds the integrity of justice, ensuring that it is administered through a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
Recording the statement of the accused under this provision is far from a mere formality. It is a critical safeguard ensuring that no conviction is handed down without the accused being fully aware of, and responding to, every aspect of the evidence against him. Section 342 of the Code imposes a solemn and unyielding duty upon the trial court, in the course of a trial, to pose direct and precise questions to the accused, ensuring he is given every opportunity to explain all circumstances arising from the evidence against him. It follows as an unassailable principle that every material circumstance presented in the prosecution evidence must be put to the accused with clarity, precision, and distinctly. The inability to do so undermines the core principles of judicial fairness and integrity. Such a lapse is not merely a procedural defect, rather, it is a fatal flaw that leaves the prosecution‟s case hollow, with no outcome but the acquittal of the accused. Injustice cannot stand where due process has been so egregiously overlooked. The law is now firmly settled that if a piece of incriminating evidence or a circumstance is not brought to the attention of the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code, such evidence or circumstance cannot be relied upon to secure his conviction. It‟s a core principle of criminal jurisprudence that no one should be condemned based on evidence he has not had the chance to confront or challenge. To act otherwise would be turning a fair trial into a hollow process.
Crl. Appeal No.24404/2019
(Qaiser alias Aaun vs. The State & another)
PLD 2026 Lahore 47
Criminal, Civil & Family Law Advocate with proven expertise in Narcotics, Anti-Rape, Attempt to Murder and Murder Trials Committed to justice, due process and fearless courtroom advocacy.
