Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 255488
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Sajjad Ahmed vs The State etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 255488. In this matter between Sajjad Ahmed and The State etc., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas, Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas DECISION DATE: 17-MAR-2026 CASE NO: Criminal Appeal-328-2024 CITATION: 2026 IHC 255488 PARTIES: Sajjad Ahmed VS The State etc. LAW / SECTION: Under section 6 CNSA, 1997 possession of narcotic is an offence | section 382-B, Cr.P.C SUBJECT: Against Conviction (PPC), Above 7 years REMARKS: Crl. Appeal against conviction in FIR No. 135/2022 dated 12.10.2022 U/s 9(1) 3(e), 9(1)5(f), 9(1)6(d), 9(2)4, 15 CNSA P.S. ANF, Islamabad ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET. IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2024.
Sajjad Ahmed Vs The State
Appellant by: Mr. Abdul Rashid Sheikh, Advocate. Respondent/State by: Rana Zulfiqar and Mr. Umais Habib, SPPs, ANF. Date of Hearing 03.02.2026.
======== INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.- Through the instant criminal appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 05.09.2024 (“Impugned Judgment”), passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, CNS, Islamabad (“Trial Court”), whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced in case FIR No.135/2022, registered u/s 9(1)3(e), 9(1)5(f), 9(1)6(d), 9(2)4 & 15, CNSA, 1997, at police station ANF, Islamabad in the following manner:- (i) u/s 9(1)3(e), 20 years R.I with fine of Rs.800,000/- and in case of default thereof further 05 months S.I. (ii) u/s 9(1)5(f), 20 years R.I with fine of Rs.800,000/- and in case of default thereof further 05 months S.I. (iii) u/s 9(1)6(d), 14 years R.I with fine of Rs.500,000/- and in case of default thereof further 05 months S.I. (iv) u/s 9(2)4, 03 years R.I with fine of Rs.400,000/- and in case of default thereof further 05 months S.I. All the imprisonments were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C was also extended to the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.2022, at about 11:00 p.m, Nazim Shahzad Virk, Inspector, ANF was present in the police station ANF, Islamabad. A spy/informer came to the police station and provided information that Sajjad Ahmad son of Sher Habib, 2 Crl. Appeal No.328 of 2024
resident of Charsadda (present appellant) will try to smuggle huge quantity of narcotic concealed in sacks of tea through Kohistan Express, “Yu-Tong Master” bearing registration No FDS-444, (blue in colour) and is travelling from Peshawar to Faisalabad, who will pass Motorway M-1 Exit Way, Islamabad at about 12:30 a.m (night). Acting on secret information, the raiding party obtained permission from senior officers and intercepted the said vehicle near the M-1 Motorway Exit, Islamabad. The informer pointed out passenger Sajjad Ahmad (present appellant), who disclosed that narcotic concealed in tea sacks had been placed in the toolbox of the bus with the help of the driver and conductor, who confirmed the statement. Upon search, six tea sacks were recovered containing 58 packets of narcotic, comprising 36 kilograms Charas, 28.8 kilograms Opium, 2.1 kilograms Heroin, and 400 grams of ICE. Samples were separated on the spot, sealed, and the remaining case property was secured through proper recovery memos in the presence of the witnesses. The bus, narcotic and related articles were taken into possession, and personal search of the appellant resulted in the recovery of CNICs, cash, ATM cards, mobile phones and travel documents, all duly sealed and documented according to law. 3. Pursuant to the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotic, Nazim Shahzad Virk, Inspector, jotted down complaint/Exh.PA and sent the same to the police station through Muhammad Shoaib Khan, Constable, for registration of FIR. Nazim Shahzad Virk, Inspector, identified his signature over the complaint/Exh.PA as Ex.PA/2. During the investigation, statements of witnesses Ufqad Khalid HC and Muhammad Younas HC u/s 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. Nazim Shahzad Virk, Inspector, also prepared an unscaled site plan, Exh.PG. Nazim Shahzad Virk, Inspector, identified his signature over the unscaled site plan/Exh.PG as Exh.PG/1. Nazim Shahzad Virk, the inspector, also conducted a cursory investigation at the spot. In the meantime, Muhammad Shoaib Khan, Constable, brought a copy of the FIR and the original complaint to the place of occurrence. Nazim Shahzad Virk, Inspector, prepared headnotes for the relevant documents and parcels and formally arrested the accused persons. 3 Crl. Appeal No.328 of 2024
Nazim Shahzad Virk Inspector issued the information slips. Nazim Shahzad Virk, Inspector, recorded a statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of Muhammad Shoaib Khan, Constable. Nazim Shahzad Virk, Inspector, along with ANF officials, the case property, the bus and the accused persons proceeded towards the police station. Upon arrival at the police station, the accused persons were confined in the lock-up, while the case property, bus and articles of personal search, as per the memos, were handed over to Moharrar Maalkhana Bilal Sher, ASI. The said bus was parked in the “MT” of the police station. Statement of Moharrar Maalkhana Bilal Sher, ASI u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded. On 13.10.2022, the accused persons were produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, who remanded them to physical custody for two days. On the same day, i.e. 13.10.2022, sample parcels were sent to NIH Islamabad for chemical analysis through Amir Rafique HC. Statements of Moharrar Maalkhana Bilal Sher ASI and Amir Rafique HC u/s 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. On the next day i.e. 14.10.2022, a letter for verification of CDR and verification of bus bearing registration No.FDS-444 were issued through the in-charge of the police station and sent to the concerned quarter. On 15.10.2022, the accused persons were transferred to judicial custody. Investigation papers were handed over to the in-charge police station for submission of an incomplete report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. On 22.08.2023, pursuant to receipt of the remaining parcel of case property ICE (Amphetamine) after chemical analysis, statement of Bilal Sher ASI u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded. Thereafter incomplete report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was submitted before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court framed the charge, to which the appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Therefore, prosecution evidence was summoned. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, to enable the appellant to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, statement of the appellant as mandated u/s 342 Cr. P.C was recorded, wherein the appellant denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. The appellant declined to record his statement on oath as envisaged u/s 340(2) Cr.P.C and did not produce any defence 4 Crl. Appeal No.328 of 2024
evidence. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments convicted and sentenced the appellant vide the Impugned Judgment, hence, this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the case was registered on the complaint of Nazim Shahzad Virk Inspector with the allegation that the ANF officials intercepted a Kohistan Express Bus near the M-1 Toll Plaza on 12.10.2022 and recovered narcotic from the toolbox of the bus; that apart from the driver and conductor of the said bus, the appellant, who was sitting on seat No.5 was also arrested on the allegation that the narcotic recovered from the toolbox was actually supplied by the appellant; that the toolbox is admittedly beyond the excess of any passenger rather it is under the exclusive control of the driver, therefore, the appellant cannot be held responsible for recovery of the narcotic from the toolbox; that the appellant was not travelling on the bus rather he was illegally picked up from another location; that during the trial, the prosecution’s witnesses admitted in cross-examination that no ticket record, passenger list, video footage, luggage tag, or independent passenger statement was collected to prove the appellant’s presence on the bus; that no witness saw the appellant while delivering the narcotic; that the prosecution also failed to prove safe custody and transmission of the alleged narcotic because the required official registers were not produced, and no independent public witness was associated with the recovery despite prior information; that despite these serious contradictions and gaps, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant while acquitted the driver and conductor; that the Impugned Judgment is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the Impugned Judgment is against the law and facts of the case and that the appellant has no previous conviction. Lastly, the learned counsel prayed for acceptance of the instant appeal and acquittal of the appellant. 5. On the other side, the learned SPP, ANF submitted that the prosecution witnesses are consistent on all the material aspects of 5 Crl. Appeal No.328 of 2024
the case; that u/s 29 CNSA, 1997, the accused has to prove his innocence. He also maintained that the consistency of the PWs suggests that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and that the Impugned Judgment has been passed in accordance with law, therefore, this appeal merits dismissal. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. According to the case set up by the prosecution, the appellant had handed over 58 packets of narcotic, packed in six sacks/Toras, to the co-accused, namely Rana Muhammad Afzal, driver and Usman Bashir, conductor of the bus. These sacks/Toras were placed in the right-side toolbox of the bus by Rana Muhammad Afzal driver and were subsequently recovered at the appellant’s pointation, with the assistance of the co-accused, Rana Muhammad Afzal driver. After recovery, the Investigating Officer completed all required legal formalities in accordance with the law. Samples were taken separately from each packet, properly sealed at the spot and the remaining recovered substance was sealed as well. The recovered case property was then brought to the police station, deposited in safe custody of police station’s Malkhana, sample were also sent to the chemical laboratory, principle of safe custody and safe transmission was duly followed. Upon completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted against three accused persons, namely Sajjad Ahmed (the present appellant), Rana Muhammad Afzal (driver), and Usman Bashir (conductor) and formal charge was framed against all of the accused for possession of narcotic as well as for abetment and facilitation in smuggling the recovered substance. The prosecution during evidence produced the recovered substance before the Court as Exh.P1, comprising 36 kilograms of Charas, 28.800 kilograms of Opium, 2100 grams of Heroin and 400 grams of ICE (amphetamine). After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court acquitted co-accused Rana Muhammad Afzal driver and Usman Bashir 6 Crl. Appeal No.328 of 2024
conductor of the bus on the ground that their involvement was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas the appellant was convicted and sentenced vide the Impugned Judgment. 8. Under section 6 CNSA, 1997 possession of narcotic is an offence, and it is the primary duty of the prosecution to prove the possession and recovery of the narcotic, through reliable, convincing, and legally admissible evidence that the accused was in conscious and exclusive possession of the recovered narcotic substance. In the present case, as per the version recorded in the FIR, the appellant handed over the alleged narcotic to co-accused, namely Rana Muhammad Afzal, driver and Usman Bashir, conductor of the bus, who placed it in the toolbox of the bus. The record further shows that the recovery was effected from the said toolbox after the appellant made a disclosure before the Investigating Officer, and the recovery was carried out with the assistance of co- accused Rana Muhammad Afzal driver. It is an admitted position that the vehicle in question was a passengers bus and that the recovery of the narcotic was made from the toolbox, which is a separate and exclusive compartment meant for keeping mechanical tools of the vehicle and is under the direct control and supervision of the driver and conductor of the vehicle and the passengers do not have access to it. This fact was also admitted by the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination that the toolbox is not accessible to passengers, the appellant was merely a passenger in the bus and he handed over his luggage to the driver and conductor, who placed it inside the toolbox instead of the designated luggage compartment. Meaning thereby that the co-accused driver and the conductor, instead of keeping the recovered substance in the luggage compartment, deliberately kept it in the toolbox of the bus, which was directly under their control and at the time of recovery, co-accused Rana Muhammad Afzal, driver, opened the toolbox of the bus from where the recovery of the narcotic was made. This fact clearly establishes that the appellant could not place the narcotic in the toolbox without knowledge and assistance of the driver and 7 Crl. Appeal No.328 of 2024
conductor of the bus, which was under their exclusive control and command. 9. Significantly, all the three accused were jointly charged and prosecution produced same set of evidence against all three accused but the learned Trial Court acquitted co-accused Rana Muhammad Afzal driver and Usman Bashir conductor, who were in direct control and possession of the toolbox from where the recovery of narcotic was effected and one of co-accused Rana Muhammad Afzal also help the Investigating Officer in the recovery of narcotic substance. This aspect requires careful scrutiny, as possession under the law must be conscious and exclusive, and mere disclosure or allegation without establishing actual control over the place of recovery may not be sufficient. Therefore, the entire matter has to be examined in the light of settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in narcotic cases, where possession of the narcotic substance is a crime and recovery of the same requires cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to establish the actual or conscious possession of the contraband. 10. From the material available on record, it is clearly established that the alleged recovery of narcotic was effected from the toolbox of the passenger bus, which was not under the exclusive control or conscious possession of the appellant. The evidence further shows that the appellant did not have direct access to the toolbox, which was a separate compartment for mechanical tools and was under the control of co-accused driver and conductor. The prosecution itself admitted that the recovery was made from the said toolbox on the appellant’s pointation and with the assistance of co-accused, Rana Muhammad Afzal, driver of the bus. However, beyond this disclosure, no independent or corroborative evidence has been produced to establish that the appellant had exclusive possession or control over the toolbox of the bus from where the narcotic was recovered. In criminal cases, particularly under the CNSA, 1997, the burden lies heavily upon the prosecution to prove conscious and 8 Crl. Appeal No.328 of 2024
exclusive possession beyond any reasonable doubt. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence connecting the appellant directly with the recovered substance, the prosecution has failed to discharge its legal burden. Consequently, the recovery of narcotic cannot be said to have been proved against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the entire prosecution’s evidence loses its legal force against the appellant, and this deficiency is crucial in narcotic cases where harsh punishments are provided under the CNSA, 1997 and the prosecution is required to bring the evidence of recovery of narcotic beyond any shadow of doubt and if any lacuna or doubt is created regarding possession and recovery then benefits of the same must be extended in favour of the accused. 11. Even otherwise, it is important to note that the prosecution had levelled identical allegations against all three accused, had collected evidence against them, found them guilty during the investigation, and submitted the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C against all three accused, including the appellant. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the available material, framed a similar charge against all three accused. However, after recording of prosecution evidence while making evaluation, the learned Trial Court disbelieved the same in respect of the two co-accused and acquitted them but surprisingly, on the very same evidence, without any material distinction, the appellant was convicted. This approach requires cautious judicial scrutiny because when the prosecution’s case rests upon a common set of allegations and evidence against all accused persons, and such evidence is found unreliable or insufficient for two of them, it becomes difficult to sustain the conviction of the third accused in the absence of any independent, strong, and distinguishing incriminating material. Furthermore, the prosecution did not challenge the acquittal of the co-accused by filing any appeal, indicating that it accepted findings of learned Trial Court regarding the weakness of the evidence. In such circumstances, maintaining the conviction of the appellant on the same disbelieved evidence would not be in consonance with settled principles of criminal justice, which require consistency, fairness, and proof 9 Crl. Appeal No.328 of 2024
beyond a reasonable doubt. Reliance is placed on Sajjad Khan alias Shahzad Khan vs. the State, (2025 SCMR 835). 12. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed. The Impugned Judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR) (INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE JUDGE
Announced in open Court on _____________
(MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN) (INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE JUDGE
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.
R.Anjam.