IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 21-K OF 2016 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 10.11.2015 
passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in 
Criminal Appeal No. 175/2014) 
 
The State/ANF 
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
Muhammad Arshad 
… Respondent 
 
 
For the Appellant:  
Mr. Habib Ahmed, ASC 
 
For the Respondent: 
Raja Aftab, ASC 
Mr. 
A.S.K. 
Ghori, 
AOR 
along-with  
respondent in person 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
06.12.2016 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- Based on a spy information that 
the respondent would smuggle heroin abroad, the respondent 
was arrested from Karachi Airport just before taking a flight to 
Bangkok. He was first taken to nearby Nihal Hospital in Malir 
for taking X-Ray of his abdomen which disclosed that it 
contained foreign bodies. He was then brought to Jinnah 
hospital, Karachi in the custody of ANF police for further 
examination. It has come on the record that a doctor 
administered Lactulose syrup and Omerprazole capsule and, 
thereafter, the respondent excreted 50 capsules, which after 
chemical examination were found to contain 550 grams of 
heroin powder. He was tried by Special Court-II, ANF, Karachi, 
found guilty and sentenced to suffer RI for five years. He was 
also fined Rs.50,000/- and in case of default in the payment of 
Criminal Appeal No. 21-K/2016 
 
2
fine, he was to undergo imprisonment for a further period of six 
months. 
 
2. 
 
The Respondent challenged his conviction in appeal 
before the High Court and was acquitted. The main reasons 
that prevailed with the learned Judges of the High Court were 
that the Dr. Inam Khan, who appeared as PW-5, did not 
support the prosecution version; that the respondent did not 
excrete heroin filled capsules in presence of the doctor; that no 
doctor of Nihal hospital or paramedic staff, where the 
respondent was initially taken for X-Ray after his arrest, was 
examined by the Investigating Officer or produced before the 
Trial Court. Such omissions led the High Court to believe that 
no independent, trustworthy or confidence inspiring evidence 
was brought on record to connect the respondent with the 
commission of the crime. The High Court’s decision of acquittal 
was then challenged in this Court by the State through a 
petition for leave to appeal bearing No. 82-K/2015, from which 
the present appeal has arisen.  
 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the 
respondent after his arrest was immediately taken to the 
nearest hospital for X-Ray which showed foreign bodies in his 
stomach, whereafter he was taken to Jinnah Hospital for 
further examination. The Doctor then administered him 
medicines so that the respondent may pass stool and 
resultantly he excreted 50 capsules which after chemical 
examination were found to contain 550 grams of heroin power. 
Leaned counsel further submitted that Head Constable who 
appeared as PW-3 and other Constables who were specifically 
deputed in the ward where the respondent was kept, were 
present at the time when the respondent excreted the capsules. 
Dr. Inam Khan who had administered medicine to the 
respondent was examined as PW-5. He deposed that after 
examining respondent’s X-Ray he advised that the respondent 
be administered Lactulose syrup and one Omerprazole capsule 
Criminal Appeal No. 21-K/2016 
 
3
and on the next day while he was on duty, the staff of ANF 
informed him that the respondent has excreted 50 capsules. 
These very capsules were then sent to Chemical Examiner. The 
Chemical Examiner Dr. Fazal Elahi was also examined as PW-3. 
He in his deposition confirmed that 50 capsules weighed 615 
grams of which 550 grams were heroin powder. Learned 
counsel submitted this evidence was sufficient to convict the 
respondent.  
 
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other 
hand argued that the X-Ray taken in Nihal hospital did not 
contain the name of the respondent and that it has not come in 
the evidence as to whether the accused excreted the capsules 
on the bed or in the toilet and whether the capsules were 
washed or not and if so as to in whose presence. He also 
submitted that it has also not come in the evidence that the 
respondent excreted capsules in the presence of the doctor. He 
next submitted that no medical officer posted in the department 
of radiology, who has issued CT scan report, after the excretion 
of the capsules, was examined.  
 
5. 
 
We have examined the evidence that has come on 
the record. It is an admitted position that the respondent was 
arrested from the airport. He was then immediately taken to 
nearby Nihal hospital in Malir where X-Ray of his stomach was 
taken which depicted foreign bodies. The X-Ray as well as the 
receipt of the hospital has been produced in evidence. The X-
Ray no doubt does not contain the name of the respondent but 
it contains the receipt number and on the receipt itself the 
name of the respondent and the very same receipt number that 
is on the X-Ray is there. After the X-Ray, the respondent was 
taken to Jinnah hospital. At all times his custody was secured 
through police personnel. The doctor then administered the 
requisite medicines so that whatever is in his stomach is 
flushed out. This entire process, right from the arrest of the 
respondent and administration of necessary medicine to 
Criminal Appeal No. 21-K/2016 
 
4
facilitate quick excretion, has not been questioned by the 
defence in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. 
All that had been said in defence was that X-Ray film does not 
contain the name of the respondent, that it has not come in the 
evidence as to whether the accused excreted the capsules on 
the bed or in the toilet and whether the capsules were washed 
or not and if so as to who washed the same and that no medical 
officer posted in the department of radiology, who has issued 
CT scan report after the excretion of capsules was examined.  
 
6. 
 
We have noted that there is no material omission or 
contradiction in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. 
The doctor i.e. PW-5 first administered the requisite medicine 
and thereafter the respondent excreted capsules under the 
watch of ANF Staff, who were deputed for such purpose. The 
excreted capsules were then produced before the doctor. In the 
presence of deposition of the doctor who after noticing foreign 
bodies in the X-Ray administered medicine to facilitate 
excretion as well as the depositions of ANF staff in whose 
presence respondent excreted capsules, it matters not whether 
the respondent excreted the capsules on the bed or in the toilet 
or whether the capsules were washed or not as such details are 
of no relevance. It has come in the evidence that the recovered 
capsules after excretion were immediately presented to the 
concerned doctor and then were sealed and sent to the 
Chemical 
Examiner. Upon chemical examination it 
was 
confirmed that the capsules contained 550 grams of heroin 
powder. No contradictions on this material aspect of the case 
has been extracted from the prosecution witnesses. We may 
mention here that even where no proper investigation is 
conducted, but where the material that comes before the Court 
is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of 
crime, the accused can still be convicted, notwithstanding 
minor omissions that have no bearing on the outcome of the 
case. Thus, there exists ample evidence on record to find the 
respondent guilty and the Trial Court rightly convicted him.  
Criminal Appeal No. 21-K/2016 
 
5
 
7. 
 
The above are the reasons of our short order dated 
06.12.2016 whereby we allowed this appeal, set aside the 
impugned judgment of the High Court and restored that of the 
Trial Court.   
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Karachi, the  
8th of December, 2016 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram