IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MANZOOR AHMED MALIK 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED 
  
 
Jail Petition No.348 of 2019 
(Against the judgment dated 18.04.2019 of the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal 
Appeal No.866 of 2017)  
  
  
 
Ibrar Ullah 
 
Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
 
Mr. S.M. Mehmood Khan Sadozai, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed 
Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab 
 
Date of hearing: 
27.10.2020. 
… 
ORDER 
  
  Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- During a routine haul 
up, Ibrar Ullah, petitioner, was intercepted shortly after alighting a 
public vehicle hailing from Peshawar on a police post set up within 
the precincts of Police Station Rawat at 9/10:00 on 10.10.2016; 
baffled by a sudden encounter, he attempted to slip away, 
however, was subdued by the contingent with 3500 grams of 
contraband, wrapped in a polythene bag, forensically turned out as 
cannabis. Upon conclusion of investigation, the petitioner was 
indicted before the learned Special Judge (CNS) Rawalpindi; he 
claimed trial that culminated into his conviction under Section 9(c) 
of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; sentenced to six 
and half years rigorous imprisonment with a direction to pay 
Rs.30000/- as fine or to undergo six months simple imprisonment 
in lieu thereof, vide judgment dated 20.09.2017; his appeal failed 
before a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide 
impugned judgment dated 18.04.2019, vires whereof, are being 
assailed on a variety of grounds that include false implication, 
non-availability of witness from the public, discrepant statements 
Jail Petition No.348 of 2019 
  
 
-: 2 :-
of the witnesses of recovery and absence of ‘protocol’ to validate the 
forensic report. 
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
We have found it somewhat difficult to persuade 
ourselves by the hypothesis of false implication. Admittedly, the 
petitioner is a resident of Peshawar; he had apparently no business 
to attend at the spot wherefrom he was unanticipatedly arrested. 
Similarly, it is difficult to contemplate his substitution to swap the 
real offender as the volume of cache being substantial could not be 
conceivably planted in the absence of a strong motive that does not 
appear the case. Absence of a witness from the public to support 
the prosecution despite availability, being symptomatic of public 
apathy towards civic responsibilities does not by itself shadow 
upon the credibility of official witnesses, repeatedly held us as 
second to none in status, found otherwise in a comfortable unison 
on all the relevant details relating to the arrest, search and 
recovery. Presence of a police picket has not been disputed by the 
defence itself. Criticism on forensic report Ex.PE carries no weight 
as it contains relevant details of the procedure followed by the 
analyst to confirm the narcotic character of the contraband; 
acquiesced by the defence during the trial. Belated arrangement by 
the petitioner of a well wisher to testify in his favour during the 
trial miserably failed to override positive evidence pointed towards 
his culpability on all fours. The said defence witness never joined 
police investigation and came up with a cock and bull story rather 
late in the day that fails to inspire confidence of even a most 
unsuspecting listener. Conclusions drawn by the courts below, on 
our own independent analysis, have been found by us well within 
the remit of law, being inconsonance with the principles of safe 
administration of criminal justice. Petition fails. Leave declined.  
 
 
JUDGE 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
27th October, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/* 
