IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.762 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 06.06.2018 passed by the 
Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in Crl. A. 
No.249/2013)  
 
 
Muhammad Rasool 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
The State  
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, ASC 
 
     
 
 
For the State:              
Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas,  
 
Ch. Ehtisham ul Haq 
 
Special Prosecutors, ANF 
 
M. Tariq J.D. Law, ANF 
 
 
Date of Hearing          
01.03.2022. 
 
Order 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Intercepted by a 
contingent of Anti Narcotic Force Attock, after a hot pursuit, the 
petitioner was found on wheel a vehicle with a considerable cache, 
weighing 11.500 kilograms of cannabis, concealed in the secret cavities 
detected in the petrol tank; it comprised 10 packets wherefrom samples 
of 10 grams each, forensically confirmed the narcotic character of the 
contraband. Upon indictment, the petitioner claimed trial that resulted 
into his conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic 
Substances Act, 1997, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a 
direction to pay fine, vide judgment dated 3.6.2013, upheld by the High 
Court vide impugned judgment dated 06.06.2018, leave to appeal 
wherefrom is being prayed on the grounds that forensic analysis did not 
qualify the “protocols” required for chemical examination as set-forth by 
the law declared in Imam Bukhsh Case. It is next argued that the 
contents of the parcels, statedly prepared at the time of alleged 
recovery, upon de-sealing in the Court, during the cross-examination, 
were incompatible with the details mentioned in the recovery memo 
prepared at the time of their seizure. Prosecution has not been able to 
Criminal Petition No.762 of 2018                                                              2 
 
prove its case involving huge penalty of imprisonment for life on the 
strength of proof beyond doubt, concluded the learned counsel. The 
learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned judgment; he 
argued that prosecution successfully drove home the charge by 
establishing each link of its case through an uninterrupted chain of 
events ranging from seizure to chemical analysis, conclusively 
confirming the contraband as being cannabis; he has next argued that 
given the volume of cache, surreptitiously concealed in a vehicle of 
value, is an event that cannot be viewed with suspicion.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
We have examined the forensic report that contains a 
detailed description of analysis undertaken by the chemical examiner 
by mentioned each test, carried out to confirm the narcotic character of 
the samples. Relevant witnesses appeared to establish safe custody of 
the contraband as well as transmission of samples to the laboratory; 
the argument does not hold water. 
 
Adverting to the plea, emphatically addressed about an apparent 
discrepancy suggested in the weight and texture of the contraband, 
made into sealed parcels at the time of their seizure, statedly mentioned 
in the recovery memo, noticed upon their de-sealing during the course 
of cross-examination on the request of defence counsel. The learned 
trial Judge has satisfactorily met the argument by citing sound reasons. 
It is off late noted, particularly, more often than not, in cases of 
narcotics that an application, rather late in the day, is moved for the  
de-sealing of parcels to fish out a discrepancy, notwithstanding, a plea 
of loud denial and false implication from the day one. It is rather 
intriguing to comprehend as to how an accused pleading innocence, all 
of a sudden in the midst of the trial, prophetically learns about a 
change, having occurred in weight or texture of the contraband kept in 
safe custody; it does not require a genius to smell the rat. In the first 
place there is no occasion for the trial Judge, in the absence of any 
plausible reason, to obligingly accede to such a request for an exercise, 
manifestly calculated to subvert the prosecution case through methods 
sinister and stained. It is otherwise not possible without connivance of 
Moharrir Malkhana and the Naib Court to lay the ground for such a 
venture, therefore, it is imperative for the prosecution to keep a 
watchful and vigilant eye upon its unscrupulous functionaries so as to 
ensure that stream of justice runs pure and clean. Any attempt or act to 
destroy or contaminate evidence lawfully collected is a cognizable 
Criminal Petition No.762 of 2018                                                              3 
 
offence in itself, commission whereof, must be visited with zero 
tolerance.  
Fair trial is not a one-way affair; it also requires an accused and 
his agents, pleading innocence, to conduct themselves in a manner 
above board, in accordance with law; their pursuit is only justified 
insofar as it is in accord with the means sanctioned by law. 
 
Upon a careful analysis of the evidence, we have not been able to 
persuade ourselves to take a view different than concurrently taken by 
the Courts below. Petition fails. Leave declined.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
1st March, 2022 
Azmat/- 
