Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

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…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant