08/06/2026
2026 MLD 752
PLJ 2026 Cr.C. 128
منشیات مقدمہ میں عدالت نے بری کرتے ہوئے قرار دیا ہے کہ منشیات مقدمات میں 3 بڑے قانونی اصول طے کیے:
*1. Safe Custody ثابت نہ ہو تو Acquittal لازمی*
اگر پراسیکیوشن یہ ثابت نہ کر سکے کہ برآمد شدہ مادہ/سیمپل پارسل پولیس کی تحویل سے لیب تک محفوظ رہا، تو کیس کے #دوسرے کرنے کی #ضرورت ہی نہیں۔ سیدھا بریت ہو گی۔
*2. of Custody کا اصول*
محفوظ تحویل کا مطلب:
- #برآمدگی > #مہر لگانا > #محررکے حوالے
- محرر سے لیبارٹری تک: اگر کسی دن کسی وجہ سے لیبارٹری بند ہونے کی وجہ سے نموناجات پارسل ہائے جمع نہ ہو سکے
- تو پولیس اہلکار کے لیے لازمی ہے کہ پارسل ہائے واپس محرر کو دے دے
- اگلے دن دوبارہ محرر سے وصول کر کے لیبارٹری جمع کروائے(ڈیلی ڈائری،رجسٹر 19اور 21 اندراج وغیرہ بیان زیر دفعہ 161 ضابطہ فوجداری دستاویزات بطور ثبوت پیش کرنے ہونگے)
اگر اہلکار پارسل اپنے پاس رکھے گا تو Safe Custody ہو جائے گی۔
*3. Ratio Decidendi*
"By now it is well settled" - مطلب یہ اب Settled Law ہے۔ 1853 کی PPC کی روح کے مطابق شواہد کی شفافیت لازمی ہے۔
# # # *عملی استعمال وکلا کے لیے:*
Cross-examination میں 3 سوال لازمی:
1. پارسل کس وقت محر سے وصول کیا؟
2. لیب کتنے بجے بند ہو جاتی ہے؟
3. اگر وقت ختم ہو گیا تھا تو پارسل رات محر کے پاس کیوں نہیں رکھوایا؟ کس کی تحویل میں رہا؟
*نوٹ:* یہ PLJ 2026 Cr.C. 128 کی شہادت ہے کہ 2026 میں بھی عدالت CNSA 1997 کے کیسز میں Chain of Custody کو سب سے اہم مان رہی ہے۔
آپ اس citation کو کراس ایگزامینیشن کے لیے استعمال کر رہے ہیں یا لکھت میں شامل کرنا ہے؟ میں اس کی Application + Case Brief بھی بنا دوں گا۔
Safe custody of parcels of samples--By now it is also well settled that if safe custody of allegedly recovered substance or parcel of sample/case property has not been proved then, there is no need to discuss other merits of case and it straightaway leads to acquittal of accused.
If for any reason whatsoever, police official after receiving parcel of sample of narcotics from the Moharir could not deposit the same in the concerned laboratory within the closing working hours then it was mandatory for him to return the same to the Moharir for safe custody and then to recollect the same from the Moharir on the day when he was again going to deposit the same in concerned laboratory otherwise safe custody of parcel of sample would be compromised.
Jail Appeal.71368/23
Rana Farman Vs The State
Reliance
Case Laws on Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
-R. 6---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Report of Government Analyst---protocol s/procedure---Scope---Substantial/sufficient compliance with R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 ('Rule 6')---Plea on behalf of accused that forensic report in the present case did not mention the details of protocol s used, as such the nature of contraband was never established---Held, that tests carried out by the analyst were vividly mentioned in his report, under the heading "Test Performed on Received Item(s) of Evidence" followed by the heading "Results and Conclusions"---Said details in the forensic report substantially/sufficiently qualified to meet the statutory requirements under R. 6 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Conviction of accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was maintained---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. 2020 SCMR 460 SHAZIA BIBI vs State
Any test conducted without a protocol lost its reliability and evidentiary value---To serve the purposes of the Control of narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Control of narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, the report of the Government Analyst must contain three elements, i.e the tests applied; the protocols applied to carry out these tests; and, the result of the test(s)---Report of the Government Analyst which did not specify the protocols of the tests applied did not meet the requirements of the law---Such a Report could not be relied upon for the conviction of an accused. [Context of 'protocols' as explained in the judgment reported as (Ikramullah's case 2015 SCMR 1002, Imam Bakhsh's case 2018 SCMR 2039 and Khair-ul-Bashar's case 2019 SCMR 930) further clarified]. PLD 2020 SC 57
Held, that the accused was driving the relevant vehicle when it was intercepted---Report received from the Chemical Examiner had declared that the recovered substance was charas---Prosecution witnesses deposing about the alleged recovery, were public servants who had no ostensible reason to falsely implicate the accused in a case of present nature---Said witnesses had made consistent statements fully incriminating the accused in the alleged offence---Nothing had been brought on record which could possibly be used to doubt the veracity of the said witnesses---Guilt of accused had been established beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence recorded against the accused and upheld by the courts below was maintained. PLD 2020 SC 132
R. 6---Control of narcot ic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcot ics--- Report of Government Analyst---Protocols/procedure---Confirmatory forensic conclusions to establish narcot ic character of a substance must be supported by the protocol/procedure mandated by R. 6 of the Control of narcot ic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Non-compliance of R. 6 would render the report of the Government Analyst inconclusive, suspicious and untrustworthy and would not meet the evidentiary assumption attached to such report 2020 SCMR 196
narcot ics were not recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle---Appellant, being in possession of valid documents showing his undisputed ownership, was entitled to the custody of the vehicle---Appeal was allowed. 2020 MLD QUETTA 59
R.6---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 36(1)---Narcotics---Government analyst report, preparation of---Mandatory requirements---Report of the Government Analyst, prepared in consequence of R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, must provide for, firstly, tests and analysis of the alleged drug; secondly, the results of the test(s) carried out, and, thirdly the test protocol s applied to carry out these tests---Said three elements formed the fundamental and the core elements of a valid Report prepared by a Government Analyst---Non-compliance of R. 6 and absence of any of the said mandatory elements/requirements frustrated the purpose and object of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ('the Act'), thereby diminishing the reliability and evidentiary value of the Report---Under S. 36 of the Act, the report of the Government Analyst, whilst being admissible in evidence without formal proof, was rebuttable and could be questioned by the accused, inter alia, on the ground of non-compliance of the information required under R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Judgment reported as State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) purposively interpreted the Act and (rightly) found R. 6 to be a mandatory provision regarding information to be reflected in the Report of the Analysts. 2019 SCMR 930 KHAIR-UL-BASHAR vs State
Ss. 9(c) & 36---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, R. 6---Possession of
