Narcotics Case Judgment in Pakistan

Introduction
Case Title and Citation
Facts of the Case
Legal Issues
Appellant’s Arguments
Court’s Observations
Forensic Report Analysis
Defense Response
Final Verdict
Legal Principles
Conclusion
About Muhammad Amin, Advocate

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Pakistan decided a narcotics case on 22 September 2020. The accused, Naveed Akhtar, faced charges under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court upheld his conviction and dismissed his appeal.

2. Case Title and Citation

Title: Naveed Akhtar vs. The State
Citation: 2022 SCMR 1784
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Judges: Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sardar Tariq Masood, Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel
Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2020
Decision Date: 22 September 2020

3. Facts of the Case

Police arrested Naveed Akhtar under FIR No. 226/2014. During interrogation, he disclosed that he had hidden more narcotics at his home. Police followed him to his house. They recovered 6150 grams of charas packed in five sealed packets.

Each packet had seven litters. Each litter weighed 1230 grams. Police separated samples for chemical testing. They registered a new FIR No. 228/2014 for this recovery.

The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to 9 years and 6 months of rigorous imprisonment. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction. Naveed filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

4. Legal Issues

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on these main issues:

The appellant was acquitted in FIR No. 226/2014.
The prosecution did not produce one recovery witness (Zaheer Nawaz).
That missing witness had a conviction in another narcotics case.
There were contradictions in the statements of two key witnesses (PW-3 and PW-5).
The High Court did not address the appellant’s defense.
The forensic report allegedly did not follow proper legal standards.

5. Appellant’s Arguments

The appellant’s lawyer raised six main points:

He got acquitted in the earlier FIR.
The police did not present one recovery witness.
That witness had a criminal record.
The two recovery witnesses contradicted each other.
The High Court ignored his defense statement.
The forensic report was unreliable.

6. Court’s Observations

The Court reviewed the entire record. Muhammad Nazir (PW-5) conducted the recovery. Jameel Hussain Shah (PW-1) received the seized narcotics. Muhammad Ashraf (PW-2) sent the samples for testing.

The forensic report confirmed the narcotics as charas. The report followed all legal and procedural requirements. The Court found no contradiction in the statements of PW-3 and PW-5.

7. Forensic Report Analysis

The Court reviewed the report marked Exh-LPF. It confirmed that the seized substance was charas. The report matched the standards from State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) and Khair-ul-Bashar v. The State (2019 SCMR 930).

8. Defense Response

In his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed police falsely implicated him. He alleged mala fide intentions. However, he failed to prove his claim.

He said he would testify under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., but he never did. His three defense witnesses failed to counter the prosecution’s evidence.

9. Final Verdict

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal. The judges confirmed that police recovered charas during legal proceedings. They found no mala fide intention or false implication. They dismissed the appeal.

Short Order:
“For reasons to be recorded later, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed.”

10. Legal Principles

The Court emphasized these legal points:

Voluntary disclosure can lead to valid recovery.
One missing witness does not ruin the case.
Police must follow forensic procedures.
Defendants must prove claims of false implication.
Courts can rely on consistent and credible testimony.

11. Conclusion

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the punishment for narcotics offenses. The Court showed that strong evidence and proper procedures lead to conviction. Weak or unproven defense cannot override reliable prosecution evidence.

12. About Muhammad Amin, Advocate

Muhammad Amin, Advocate, is a practicing lawyer with over 7 years of experience. He appears in all courts of Pakistan. He handles criminal, civil, family, tax, and corporate matters. His office is located at Office No. 14, Zeb Plaza, University Road, Tahkal Payan, Peshawar. He offers legal services online across Pakistan and abroad.

📞 Contact: 0313-9708019
📧 Email and document drafting services available on request.