IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan 
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.48 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 10.12.2015 passed by the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Crl. Appeal No.2831 of 2010) 
 
Ahmed Ali and another          
… 
… 
 
Appellants 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
The State 
 
 
 
… 
… 
 
Respondent 
 
For the appellants : 
Raja Rizwan Abbasi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
For the State  
: 
Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Addl. PG Pb.  
 
 
 
 
(Via video link from Lahore) 
Amicus Curiae  
: 
Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, ASC 
Date of hearing  
: 
13.12.2022 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J. Ahmad Ali and Iftikhar Ahmad 
(hereinafter referred to as the (“appellants”) were booked in case FIR No. 
605 of 2010, registered on 26.05.2010 at Police Station A-Division, 
District Sheikhupura, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic 
Substances Act, 1997 (“CNSA”). After regular trial, the learned Sessions 
Judge/Special Court, CNSA, Sheikhupura, vide its judgment dated 
13.11.2010, convicted the appellants under Section 9(c) of CNSA and 
sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees 
five hundred thousand) each, or in default thereof to further undergo 
simple imprisonment for one year each, with benefit of Section 382-B of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (“the Code”). The appeal filed by 
the appellants before the learned High Court was dismissed vide 
impugned judgment dated 10.12.2015; hence, the instant appeal by 
leave of this Court granted on 22.01.2021. 
2. 
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants 
are innocent and have falsely been involved in the commission of the 
offence; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any 
Crl.A.48/2021 
2
reasonable doubt as the prosecution evidence is tainted with 
contradictions and discrepancies; that the police, just to show their 
efficiency, has entangled the appellants in this crime; that during the 
trial neither the recovered Charas was produced in Court nor the same 
was exhibited; that the vehicle, the secret cavity whereof contraband was 
recovered, was also neither produced nor exhibited; that Moharrar of the 
Malkhana had not mentioned the date on which sample parcels were 
received by him, and also that he remained quiet regarding receipt of the 
remaining Charas. On the basis of the above deficiencies in the 
prosecution case, learned counsel submits that the appellants deserve 
acquittal. 
3. 
On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General Punjab 
(“APG”) supported the impugned judgment and stated that the 
prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond any reasonable 
doubt; that there is no inconsistency in the prosecution evidence; that 
Muhammad Bashir ASI/Moharrar (PW-2) appeared in the trial court and 
stated that he kept the sample parcels in safe custody and handed over 
the same to Muhammad Jamil, Constable (PW-3) for onward 
transmission to the Chemical Examiner, while the said Muhammad 
Jamil also appeared and stated that he deposited the sample parcels in 
the office of the Chemical Examiner intact for analysis; thus, the 
prosecution has proved safe custody and safe transmission. 
4. 
Heard and record perused. The main point agitated by the learned 
counsel for the petitioners is that the case property was neither produced 
in the trial court nor exhibited by the prosecution. The learned APG, after 
going through the record, conceded that this flaw was left by the 
prosecution during the trial. He, as well as the learned Amicus Curia, 
however, assisted this court regarding the legal effects of non-production 
of case property in the trial court. 
5. 
In light of the above, the main questions for consideration before 
this court are: why is the case property to be produced and exhibited 
during the trial? under which provisions of law? and which provisions of 
law deal with the proposition. For that purpose, first we need to examine 
the relevant provisions of law and rules as to the case property and 
exhibition of the same in a court of law. 
 
Rule 22.16 of the Police Rules, 1934 (“the Police Rules”) deals 
with the “case property”. Sub-rule (1) thereof provides, inter alia, that in 
certain circumstances, police shall seize weapons, articles and property 
in connection with criminal cases, and take charge of property which is 
unclaimed. Sub-rule (2) thereof provides, inter alia, that each weapon, 
Crl.A.48/2021 
3
article or property (not being cattle) seized under the above sub-rule shall 
be marked or labelled with the name of the person from whom, or the 
place where, it was seized, and reference to the case diary or other report 
submitted from the police station. If articles are made up into a parcel, 
the parcel shall be secured with sealing wax, bearing the seal impression 
of the responsible officer, and shall similarly be marked or labelled. Such 
articles or parcels shall be placed in safe custody, pending disposal as 
provided by law or rule. Sub-rule (3) thereof provides, inter alia, that the 
police shall send to headquarters or to magisterial outposts all weapons, 
articles and property connected with cases sent for trial, as well as 
suspicious, unclaimed and other property, when ordered to do so by a 
competent Magistrate. Sub-rule (4) thereof provides, inter alia, that motor 
vehicles detained or seized by the police in connection with cases or 
accidents shall be produced before a Magistrate after rapid investigation 
or by means of in-complete challan. The evidence relating to the identity 
or condition of the vehicle should be led and disposed of at an early date, 
and the Magistrate should then be invited to exercise the discretion 
vested in him by Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, to order 
that the vehicle be made over to the owner pending conclusion of the 
case on security to be produced whenever demanded by the Court. 
 
Rule 22.18 of the Police Rules deals with “custody of property”. 
Sub-rule (1) thereof provides, inter alia, that property exceeding in value 
of Rs.500/-, whether appertaining to cases or seized on suspicion, or 
taken as unclaimed, shall be forwarded as soon as possible to district 
headquarters for deposit in the treasury in accordance with Police Rule 
27.18(2) or, in the case of property connected with a case to be tried at 
an outstation or Tahsil, to the Tahsil Treasury, where it shall be placed in 
the Tahsil strong-room under the charge of Tahsildar. Sub-rule (2) 
thereof provides, inter alia, that all case property and unclaimed 
property, other than cattle, of which the police have taken possession, 
shall, if capable of being so treated, be kept in the store-room. Otherwise, 
the officer in-charge of the police station shall make other suitable 
arrangements for its safe custody until such time as it can be dealt with 
under sub-rule (1) above. Each article shall be entered in the store-room 
register and labelled. The label shall contain a reference to the entry in 
the store-room register and description of the article itself and, in the 
case of articles of case property, a reference to the case number. If 
several articles are contained in a parcel, a detail of the articles shall be 
given on the label and in the store-room register. The officer in-charge of 
the police station shall examine, government and other property in the 
store-room, at least twice a month and shall make an entry in the station 
Crl.A.48/2021 
4
diary on the Monday following the examination to the effect that he has 
done so. 
 
Rule 22.70 of the Police Rules provides that Register No. XIX shall 
be maintained, wherein, with the exception of articles already included in 
Register No. XVI, every article placed in the store-room shall be entered 
and the removal of any such article shall also be noted in the appropriate 
column. 
 
Rule 27.11 of the Police Rules provides that the head of the legal 
branch shall, with the help of his assistants, maintain the Registers, 
including Register of case property and unclaimed property in Form 
27.11(1), which may be destroyed three years after being completed. 
 
Rule 27.12 of the Police Rules provides that at headquarters, the 
Deputy Superintendent of Police (Legal), with the assistance of his staff, 
shall take charge of weapons, articles and property connected with their 
safe custody until the case is decided. When final orders are passed in 
the case, such weapons, articles and property shall, if not made over to 
the owner, be made over to the District Nazar. The Deputy 
Superintendent of Police (Legal) shall similarly take charge of, and be 
responsible for, the safe custody of suspicious property until the issue of 
the proclamation under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
when such property be made over to the District Nazar. 
 
Thus, the Police Rules mandate that case property be kept in the 
Malkhana and that the entry of the same be recorded in Register No. XIX 
of the said police station. It is the duty of the police and prosecution to 
establish that the case property was kept in safe custody, and if it was 
required to be sent to any laboratory for analysis, to further establish its 
safe transmission and that the same was also recorded in the relevant 
register, including the road certificate, etc. The procedure in the Police 
Rules ensures that the case property, when is produced before the court, 
remains in safe custody and is not tempered with until that time. A 
complete mechanism is provided in Police Rules qua safe custody and 
safe transmission of case property to concerned laboratory and then to 
trial Court.  
6. 
Now adverting to the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders (Civil 
and Criminal) (“High Court Rules”), it is to be noted that Part B of 
Chapter 24 of Volume III thereof deals with the trial of the Sessions 
cases. Rule 14-E thereof provides, inter alia, that care is often required in 
tracing the custody of a prisoner's substances, personal food, blood-
stained clothes, etc. The evidence should never leave it doubtful as to 
what person or persons have had charge of such articles throughout the 
Crl.A.48/2021 
5
various stages of the inquiry, if such doubt can be cleared up. This is 
especially necessary in the cases of articles sent to the chemical 
examiner. The person who packs, seals and dispatches such articles 
should invariably be examined. 
 
Rule 14-F of the High Court Rules provides that clothes, weapons, 
money, ornaments, food and every article which forms a part of the 
circumstantial evidence should be produced in Court and their 
connection with the case and identity should be proved by witnesses. 
Rule 14-H thereof provides, inter alia, that all exhibits should be marked 
with a letter or number. Articles which are produced in evidence should 
have a label attached to them bearing a number, and that number 
should be quoted throughout the record wherever any such article is  
referred to and should be distinctly marked as “admitted or not 
admitted”. If the exhibits have already been assigned numbers by the 
police, then that series of numbers should be mentioned to avoid 
confusion. A printed label should be affixed or attached to each exhibit 
containing, number of exhibit, produced by, admitted (signature of 
court), date, case and description of exhibits. The Sessions Judge is 
responsible to see that these entries are properly made. 
 
The above rules are reproduced as under:- 
“14-E. Custody of other articles. - Similar care is often required 
in tracing the custody of prisoner’s substances, personal food, 
blood-stained clothes etc. The evidence should never leave it 
doubtful as to what person or persons have had charge of such 
articles throughout the various stages of the inquiry if such doubt 
can be cleared up. This is especially necessary in the cases of 
articles sent to the Chemical Examiner. The person who packs, 
seals and dispatches such articles should invariably be examined. 
14-F. Every article to be produced. Clothes, weapons, money, 
ornaments, food and every article which forms a part of the 
circumstantial evidence should be produced in Court and their 
connection with the case and identity should be proved by 
witnesses.  
14-H. Exhibits.- All exhibits should be marked with a letter or 
numbers, Articles which are produced in evidence should have a 
label attached to them bearing a number, and that number 
should be quoted throughout the record wherever any such 
article is referred to and should be distinctly marked as “admitted 
or not admitted”. If the exhibits have already been assigned 
numbers by the police, that series of numbers should be 
mentioned to avoid confusion. 
A printed label should be affixed or attached to each exhibit 
containing the following particulars:- 
(i)  
Number of exhibit 
(ii)  
Produced by 
(iii)  
Admitted (Signature of Court) 
(iv)   
Date 
(v)  
Case 
Crl.A.48/2021 
6
(vi)  
Description of exhibits. 
The Sessions Judge, should see that these entries are property 
made. 
 
Thus, under the Police Rules and the High Court Rules, 
mentioned above, in all cases, especially in the cases of articles sent to 
the chemical examiner, it is necessary that there be no doubt as to what 
person or persons have had charge of such articles throughout various 
stages of the inquiry. Besides, the person who packed, sealed, and 
dispatched such articles should invariably be examined. Further, the 
clothes, weapons, money, ornaments, food and every other article that 
forms a part of the circumstantial evidence has to be produced in court, 
and their connection with the case and identity should be proved by 
witnesses. 
7. 
Now, adverting to the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1898, Section 516-A thereof deals with the order for custody 
and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. It provides that 
when any property regarding which any offence appears to have been 
committed, or which appears to have been used for the commission of 
any offence is produced before any criminal court during any inquiry or 
trial, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper 
custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, 
and if the property is subject to speedy or natural decay, it may, after 
recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or 
otherwise disposed of. The first proviso thereto provides that if the 
property consists of explosive substances, the court shall not order it to 
be sold or handed over to any person other than a government 
department or office dealing with, or to an authorized dealer of such 
substances. The second proviso thereto provides that if the property is a 
dangerous drug, intoxicant, intoxicating liquor or any other narcotic 
substance, seized or taken into custody under various laws, the court 
may, either on an application or of its own motion, and under its 
supervision and control, obtain and prepare such number of samples of 
the property as it may deem fit for safe custody and production before it 
or any other court, and cause destruction of the remaining portion of the 
property under a certificate issued by it in that behalf. The third proviso 
thereto provides that such samples shall be deemed to be whole of the 
property in an inquiry or proceeding in relation to such offence before 
any authority or court. 
 
Thus, the Court, on an application or of its own motion, under its 
supervision and control, can obtain and prepare such a number of 
samples of the property as it may deem fit for safe custody and 
Crl.A.48/2021 
7
production before it or any other Court and can cause the destruction of 
the remaining portion of the property under a certificate issued by it in 
that behalf. Only then shall such samples be deemed to be the whole of 
the property in an inquiry or proceeding in relation to such offence before 
any authority or court. Even then, the sample parcels and the certificate 
are to be produced before the trial court and required to be exhibited, 
alongwith the report of the said Magistrate.  
8. 
Another important provision is the Control of Narcotic Substances 
(Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which provides the procedure to be 
followed by the police while dispatching the narcotic for the test or 
analysis and also the procedure to be adopted by the analyst. Relevant 
provisions therefrom are as follows: 
4. Dispatch of sample for test or analysts, --- (1) Reasonable 
quantity of samples from the narcotic drugs, psychotropic 
substances of the controlled substances seized, shall be drawn on 
the spot of recovery and dispatched to the officer-incharge of 
nearest Federal Narcotic Testing Laboratory, depending upon the 
availability for test facilities, either by insured post or through 
special messenger duly authorized for the purpose. 
(2)  
Samples may be dispatched for analysis under the cover of 
a Test Memorandum specified in Form-1 at the earliest, but not 
later than seventy-two hours of the seizure. The envelope should 
be sealed and marked “Secret Drug Sample/Test Memorandum.” 
5. Receipt in the laboratory and examination of sample with 
reference to Test Memorandum. --- (1) The sealed envelope 
containing the samples, received in the laboratory should be 
carefully opened and given a distinct laboratory number.  
(2)  
A separate register be maintained for narcotic drugs which 
may be further sub-divided agency-wise and the laboratory 
numbers should form a continuous series for each year.  
(3) 
All samples shall be passed to the analyst the same day, 
who will then keep the same in his safe custody and will examine 
and record its, or their, weight in the Test Memorandum. He will 
compare the markings on the Test Memorandums with the 
markings on the packages envelopes and will ensure that he test 
the relevant sample, and in no case, the analysis of a narcotic 
drug be delayed as the Courts may refuse to extend remand 
beyond fifteen days in the absence of a chemical report.  
6. Report of result of test or analysis. --- After test or analysis 
the result thereof together with full protocols of the test applied, 
shall be signed in quadruplicate and supplied forthwith to the 
sender as specified in Form-II. 
The above provisions make it clear that samples of reasonable quantity 
have to be drawn at the spot from the narcotic substances and the same 
have to be dispatched to the nearest Testing Laboratory. It is important 
to note that the samples have to be dispatched for analysis at the 
earliest, but not later than seventy-two hours of the seizure. Further, the 
samples have to be dispatched for analysis, either by insured post or 
through special messenger duly authorized for the purpose, under the 
Crl.A.48/2021 
8
cover of a “Test Memorandum” specified in Form-I and the envelope 
should 
be 
sealed 
and 
marked 
as 
“Secret 
Drug 
Sample/Test 
Memorandum”. After reaching the laboratory, the sealed envelope 
containing the samples should be carefully opened and given a distinct 
laboratory number, further subdivided agency-wise and the laboratory 
numbers should form a continuous series for each year, and for that 
purpose, a separate register has to be maintained. Thereafter, all 
samples have to be passed to the analyst on the same day, who has to 
keep the same in his safe custody, examine and record their weight in 
the Test Memorandum, compare the markings on the Test Memorandum 
with the markings on the package envelopes, and to ensure to test the 
relevant samples. It is emphasized that in no case should the analysis of 
a narcotic substance be delayed, as the courts refuse to extend remand 
beyond fifteen days in the absence of a chemical report. 
9. 
With regard to the case law on the subject, it is to be noted that in 
the case of Qamar Zaman v. Waseem Iqbal and 5 others (2004 SCMR 
1209), this court held that the gold articles said to be the belonging of 
the deceased were neither got identified in accordance with law nor 
exhibited in the trial, and as such, reliance on the same and awarding 
capital punishment would not at all be justified. In the case of State of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Deputy Attorney: General for 
Pakistan v. Kenneth Marshal and 2 others (2005 SCMR 594) it was 
held that the prosecution miserably failed to produce and exhibit the 
case property though many opportunities were afforded by the trial 
Court; in such circumstances, it was rightly held by the High Court that 
there was no possibility of the accused being convicted and continuation 
of trial against them would be an abuse of the process of the Court. In 
the case of Gul Dast Khan v. the State (2009 SCMR 431), it was held 
that it would not be out of place to mention that the case property in that 
case has neither been exhibited nor produced at the trial, causing a dent 
in the prosecution's case. In the case of Amjad Ali v. State (2012 SCMR 
577) it was held that admittedly the case property, the stepney of the car 
was never produced during trial to verify as to whether it could contain 
such a huge quantity of the narcotics in question; the referred elements 
of doubt surrounding the prosecution case have led us to hold that the 
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to 
sustain conviction. 
 
With regard to the case-law from Indian jurisdiction on the 
subject, it is to be noted that in the case of Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal 
v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 5 SCC 123] the Indian Supreme 
Court held as under: 
Crl.A.48/2021 
9
“12. Last but not the least, the alleged narcotic powder seized 
from the possession of the accused, including the appellant was 
never produced before the trial court as a material exhibit and 
once again there is no explanation for its nonproduction. There is, 
thus, no evidence to connect the forensic report with the 
substance that was seized from the possession of the appellant or 
the other accused.” 
 
In the case of Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2013) 14 
SCC 527] it was held as follows: 
“10. On the other hand, on a reading of this Court's judgment in 
Jitendra v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 562, we find that this 
Court has taken a view that in the trial for an offence under the 
NDPS Act, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by 
cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of the contraband 
goods were seized from the possession of the accused and the 
best evidence to prove this fact is to produce during the trial, the 
seized materials as material objects and where the contraband 
materials alleged to have been seized are not produced and there 
is no explanation for the failure to produce the contraband 
materials by the prosecution, mere oral evidence that the 
materials were seized from the accused would not be sufficient to 
make out an offence under the NDPS Act particularly when the 
panch witnesses have turned hostile. Again, in the case of Ashok 
v. State of M.P. [(2011) 5 SCC 123], this Court found that the 
alleged narcotic powder seized from the possession of the accused 
was not produced before the trial court as material exhibit and 
there was no explanation for its non- production and this Court 
held that there was therefore no evidence to connect the forensic 
report with the substance that was seized from the possession of 
the appellant.” 
 
In the case of Vijay Pandey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 
[(2019) 18 SCC 215) it was held as under: 
“8. The failure of the prosecution in the present case to relate the 
seized sample with that seized from the appellant makes the case 
no different from failure to produce the seized sample itself. In the 
circumstances the mere production of a laboratory report that the 
sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof by itself. 
The sample seized and that tested have to be co-related.” 
10. 
In the rules referred to above, great emphasis has been laid on the 
safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotic substances and their 
transmission to the laboratory within seventy-two hours, perhaps for the 
reason that if the recovery of the narcotics from the custody of an 
accused is proved, he has to be convicted relying upon the report of the 
chemical examiner. 
 
Further, the case property is always relevant for the decision of 
the case because if the narcotics are recovered from any accused, the 
same should have been shown in court, and then the report of the 
laboratory would be helpful to the prosecution. Likewise, in narcotics 
cases, the conviction and sentence are based on the possession of the 
narcotics or on aiding, abetting or associating with the narcotics 
offences. In that eventuality, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to 
Crl.A.48/2021 
10 
produce the case property before the court to show that this is the 
narcotics/case property that was recovered from accused’s possession. 
The defense counsel may then request the court to de-seal and weigh the 
case property. 
 
Even otherwise, if the prosecution claims that huge quantities of 
narcotics, i.e., many mounds, were recovered but the same were never 
produced, then how can the accused be convicted for the said narcotics, 
which were never before the court or may not even be in existence? 
However, if the narcotics were destroyed under Section 516-A of the 
Code, then, of course, the said practice should be done after issuing 
notice to the accused, and the destruction should be done in the 
presence of the accused or his representative. The Magistrate is required 
to prepare samples of the narcotics substance that was ultimately 
destroyed so that a representative of the destruction process could be 
produced in the Court; besides, the certificate so issued by the 
Magistrate would also be relevant and the same should be exhibited in 
the Court. When the contraband, on the basis of which a person is 
convicted, is not produced or exhibited, how can a conviction be 
sustained on the basis of the same? When the material (narcotics) is 
neither produced nor exhibited, the presumption can be drawn that it is 
not in existence at all. When the best evidence, i.e., the case property/ 
narcotics, vehicle, etc., is withheld by the prosecution and there is no 
plausible explanation for the non-production of the same in court, an 
adverse inference or assumption against the prosecution could be drawn 
under Article 129-(g1) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and it can 
easily be presumed that no such material/narcotics is in existence. 
Needless to observe that if the case property is not produced in Court, 
the concerned authority/prosecution is required to furnish plausible 
explanation based upon concrete material and not mere lame excuses.  
11. 
It is further to be noted that in a stringent law such as the CNSA, 
where capital punishment or imprisonment for life can be awarded even 
on the testimonies of police officials, in order to bring home guilt against 
an accused, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove their case 
through reliable, unimpeachable, and confidence-inspiring evidence 
beyond any reasonable doubt. The harder the punishment, the stricter 
the standard of proof. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the 
judgment of this Court reported as Ameer Zeb v. the State (PLD 2012 
SC 380), where it was observed that: 
“Punishments provided in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 
1997 were quite stringent and long, if not harsh, and, thus, a 
special care had to be taken that a court trying such an offence 
had to be convinced that the entire quantity allegedly recovered 
Crl.A.48/2021 
11 
from the accused person’s possession was indeed narcotic 
substance. We, reverently and respectfully, tend to agree with the 
latter view and would like to add that the rule of thumb for safe 
administration of criminal justice is: “The harsher the sentence 
the stricter the standard of proof.” (Underling is provided by us for 
emphasis.) 
 
In the said Ameer Zaib’s case it was also observed by this court 
that: 
“We may also observe that in such cases it is the accused person 
who is at the receiving end of long and stringent punishments 
and, thus, safeguards from his point of view ought not to be 
allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of mere comfort or 
convenience of the prosecution.” 
12.  
Even otherwise, it is well settled that for the purposes of extending 
the benefit of doubt to an accused, it is not necessary that there be 
multiple infirmities in the prosecution case or several circumstances 
creating doubt. A single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable, in the 
prosecution case would be sufficient to entitle the accused to its benefit, 
not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Reliance 
in this regard may be placed on the cases reported as Tajamal Hussain 
v. the State (2022 SCMR 1567), Sajjad Hussain v. the State (2022 
SCMR 1540), Abdul Ghafoor v. the State (2022 SCMR 1527 SC), Kashif 
Ali v. the State (2022 SCMR 1515), Muhammad Ashraf v. the State 
(2022 SCMR 1328), Khalid Mehmood v. the State (2022 SCMR 1148), 
Muhammad Sami Ullah v. the State (2022 SCMR 998), Bashir 
Muhammad Khan v. the State (2022 SCMR 986), The State v. Ahmed 
Omer Sheikh (2021 SCMR 873), Najaf Ali Shah v. the State (2021 
SCMR 736), Muhammad Imran v. the State (2020 SCMR 857), Abdul 
Jabbar v. the State (2019 SCMR 129), Mst. Asia Bibi v. the State 
(2019 PLD 64 SC), Hashim Qasim v. the State (2017 SCMR 986), 
Muhammad Mansha v. the State (2018 SCMR 772), Muhammad 
Zaman v. the State (2014 SCMR 749 SC), Khalid Mehmood v. the 
State (2011 SCMR 664), Muhammad Akram v. the State (2009 SCMR 
230), Faheem Ahmed Farooqui v. the State (2008 SCMR 1572), 
Ghulam Qadir v. the State (2008 SCMR 1221) and Tariq Pervaiz v. the 
State (1995 SCMR 1345). 
13.  
In the instant case, the exhibits include an application to the SHO 
(Ex. PA), FIR (Ex. PA/1), a recovery memo (Ex. PB) and a report of the 
chemical examiner (Ex. PC/1) which were produced during trial; 
however, the narcotics substance and the vehicle, which form the case 
property i.e. narcotics recovered, were neither produced in court nor 
exhibited by the prosecution without plausible explanation. Therefore, we 
are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a 
Crl.A.48/2021 
12 
reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt is extended to the 
appellants, Ahmed Ali and Iftikhar Ahmed. 
14.  
These are the reasons of our short order dated 13.12.2022 which 
is reproduced as under: 
“For reasons to be recorded later, this appeal is allowed and 
conviction and sentences passed by the trial court and upheld by 
the High Court are hereby set-aside and the appellants Ahmed Ali 
and Iftikhar Ahmed are acquitted of the charge. They be released 
from jail forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other 
case. 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING  
Islamabad  
    .02.2023 
M.Saeed/*