IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 614 OF 2016 
(On 
appeal 
against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
19.10.2016 passed by the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 46-P/2014) 
 
Ajab Khan 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The State 
… Respondent 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Ms. Aisha Tasneem, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Raja Muhammad Rizwan Ibrahim Satti, State 
Counsel 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
28.10.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner was proceeded 
against in terms of the case registered vide FIR No. 567 dated 
29.05.2011 under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances 
Act, 1997, at Police Station Muhammad Riaz Shaheed, District Kohat 
as charas weighing 19 kilograms was recovered from him. The learned 
Trial Court vide its judgment dated 07.01.2012 convicted the petitioner 
under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and 
sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay a 
fine of Rs.500,000/- or in default whereof to further undergo SI for five 
years. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to him. In appeal 
the learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentences 
recorded against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court.  
2. 
 
The prosecution story as given in the impugned judgment 
is as under:- 
“2. 
Brief and essential facts of the prosecution case 
according to the FIR are that Wali Bat Khan IHC along with 
Mubarik Hussain LHC, Tariq Ahmed LHC, Abrar No. 1369 and 
other police personnel were busy in checking of vehicles at 
Highway Check Post; that in the meanwhile a Suzuki motorcar 
of White colour bearing registration No. N-8704 coming from 
Darra Adam Khel side, was stopped for checking purpose; that 
Jail Petition No. 614/2016 
2
on query the driver disclosed his name as Ajab Khan son of Aqal 
Khan, and on search of the motorcar 19 packets of charas 
gardha was recovered; that on weighment each packet came 
1000 grams; that from each packet 4/4 grams were separated 
for FSL and sealed into separate parcels while the remaining 
was sealed into separate parcel. The recovered contrabands 
were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PC); that 
murasila (Exh.PW 5/1) was drafted and sent to the police 
station for registration of the case, upon which the case FIR was 
registered against the accused.  
 
3. 
 
After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 
Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. In order to prove its case 
the prosecution produced as many as eight witnesses. When examined 
under Section 342 Cr.P.C., the petitioner stated that he is innocent and 
has been falsely implicated in the case.  
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the Police has 
planted a fake case upon him. Contends that the narcotic was 
allegedly recovered from the petitioner in the broad daylight in a busy 
thoroughfare but none from the public was associated in the case to 
depose against the petitioner. Contends that the confessional 
statement of the petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has no value as 
the same was recorded on a printed proforma and the certificate 
issued by the Magistrate clearly shows that the petitioner gave the 
statement in Pashto, which was translated into Urdu. Contends that 
Muhammad Iqbal (PW-3) who was supposed to send the parcels to KBI 
unit for its onward transmission to Forensic Science Laboratory did not 
mention the date as to when he transmitted the parcels to KBI unit 
whereas Samiullah (PW-8) stated that he had taken the samples to the 
FSL on 06.06.2011 i.e. after six days of the alleged occurrence, for 
which no plausible explanation has been given and the same shows 
that the safe chain of custody was compromised. She lastly contends 
that the petitioner is innocent and he may be acquitted of the charge.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has supported the 
impugned judgment. He contended that the petitioner was caught red 
handed while transporting a huge quantity of narcotics and he also 
confessed his guilt after two days of the occurrence before the Judicial 
Magistrate and the fact that he gave his statement on a proforma or in 
Pashto is of no avail to him because it is on record that his statement 
was translated and read over to him. Contends that the Judicial 
Magistrate who had recorded petitioner’s confessional statement had 
Jail Petition No. 614/2016 
3
appeared as PW-7 and has duly explained and verified the statement 
made by the petitioner. Contends that the defence counsel did not 
cross-examine PW-8 as to why he sent the samples to the FSL after six 
days, therefore, this ground cannot be taken at this stage. Lastly 
contends that the petitioner is guilty of the offence, therefore, he does 
not deserve any leniency by this Court.  
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the evidence available on record.  
 
 
 
 
The petitioner was caught red handed by the Police and 
19 packets of charas garda, each packet weighing 1000 grams (total 
19 kilogram), was recovered from beneath the rear seat of the car, 
which was being driven by the petitioner. From each packet, 4 grams 
of charas was separated in 19 separate parcels for the purpose of 
chemical examination and the remaining was sealed into separate 
parcel. The prosecution’s case hinges upon the statements of Tariq 
Ahmed, LHC, (PW-4) and Wali Bat, IHC (PW-5). Both these witnesses 
have narrated the prosecution story in a natural manner and remained 
consistent throughout and their testimony could not be shattered by 
the defence despite lengthy cross-examination. The said witnesses had 
no enmity with the petitioner to falsely implicate him in the present 
case as a huge quantity of 19 kilograms of charas cannot be foisted 
upon the petitioner to fabricate a fake case. This Court in a number of 
judgments has held that testimony of police officials is as good as any 
other private witness unless it is proved that they have animus against 
the accused. However, no such thing could be brought on record by the 
petitioner in this case. This Court in Salah-ud-Din Vs. State (2010 
SCMR 1962) has held that “reluctance of general public to become 
witness in such like cases has become judicially recognized fact and 
there was no way out to consider statement of official witness, as no 
legal bar or restriction has been imposed in such regard. Police officials 
are as good witnesses and could be relied upon, if their testimony 
remained un-shattered during cross-examination.” The police officials 
separated the samples from each packet in a prescribed manner and 
sent the same to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of 
the Forensic Science Laboratory shows that all the 19 samples were 
subjected to chemical and instrumental analysis and the same were 
found to be narcotic substance. So far as the argument of learned 
counsel for the petitioner that the samples were sent to the Forensic 
Jail Petition No. 614/2016 
4
Science Laboratory after a period of six days, therefore, the safe 
transmission of the samples is not proved is concerned, we have 
noticed that Muhammad Iqbal (PW-3) and Samiullah (PW-8) who were 
responsible for transmission of the samples to FSL were never cross-
examined on this point by the defence, therefore, this ground cannot be 
taken at this stage. We could not find anything from the record, 
which could suggest that the safe chain of custody of the samples 
was compromised. We have noticed that just after two days of the 
occurrence, the petitioner had made a confessional statement before 
the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Kohat in which he confessed his guilt and 
stated that because of poverty he has committed the crime. The printed 
proforma was only a memorandum of enquiry through which some 
basic questions were asked from the petitioner. The confessional 
statement of the petitioner was separately recorded and not on a 
printed proforma. The certificate issued by the Magistrate in this 
regard clearly shows that although the petitioner gave the statement in 
Pashto but the same was translated and read over to him. The 
petitioner was also given 30 minutes time to think over before 
recording his confessional statement. The learned Judicial Magistrate 
who had recorded the statement of the petitioner has also appeared 
before the Trial Court as PW-7 and has duly testified the same. He 
was cross-examined at length but nothing favourable to the petitioner 
could be brought on record. Even otherwise, the close analysis of the 
whole prosecution evidence coupled with the confessional statement, 
the recovery of huge quantity of narcotics and the happening of the 
occurrence in broad daylight when evaluated conjointly, there is no 
other option left with the Court except to rely on the statements of the 
prosecution witnesses for the purpose of conviction as recorded by the 
two courts below. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any force, 
the same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
28th of October, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
