IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Jail Petition No.83 of 2021  
(Against the judgment 01.02.2021 passed by the Lahore 
High Court Rawalpindi Bench in Crl. A. No.58/2020) 
 
 
Raja Ehtisham Kiyani 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State  
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Syed Hamid Ali Shah Bokhari, ASC 
 
 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed,  
 
Deputy Prosecutor general Punjab 
 
Date of Hearing: 
04.03.2022. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.:- Surprised by a 
police contingent within the precincts of Police Station Gujjar Khan, 
headed by Shabbir Hussain, SI (PW-3), the petitioner was found in 
possession of 1500 grams of heroin at 1:30 p.m. on 21.04.2019. 
Upon search, a cell phone handset alongwith some cash were also 
secured vide inventory. 75 grams sample forensically confirmed the 
contraband 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 6-years RI with a 
direction to pay fine, pre-trial period inclusive, vide judgment dated 
29.01.2020, upheld by the High Court vide impugned judgment 
dated 01.02.2021, being assailed on a variety of grounds, bias of 
Shabbir Hussain SI (PW-3), clamored most emphatically.  
2. 
 
It is argued that Shabbir Hussain SI who allegedly 
headed the police contingent comprising of three constables carried 
out the entire exercise, right from inception to deposit of samples to 
the Punjab Forensic Science Agency himself, which in retrospect, 
lends credence to the defence plea that in the backdrop of an earlier 
animosity he cooked up a false case and was personally interested in 
its success. It is next argued that investigation of the case by the 
complainant himself, particularly in the face of his alleged 
Jail Petition No.83 of 2021                                2 
misconduct must be viewed with caution. The learned Law Officer, 
contrarily, defended the impugned judgment on the grounds that the 
petitioner was intercepted with a considerable cache of a narcotic 
substance, most lethal in nature, forensically so confirmed through 
an uninterrupted chain of various investigative steps, ranging from 
seizure, safe custody to transmission thereof. It is next argued that 
the witnesses are in a comfortable unison on all the salient details of 
the recovery as well as matters collateral thereto, leaving no space to 
entertain any hypothesis other than petitioner’s guilt. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
We are not intrigued by Investigation Officer’s conduct 
on his having swiftly concluded various investigative steps/ 
requirements, himself to bring the prosecution to its logical end; 
attestation of inventories by other members of the contingent 
confirmed their presence in the episode, otherwise an official 
business 
protected 
by 
statutory 
presumption 
of 
being 
in 
order/genuine; on the contrary, efficient promptitude deserves 
acclaim.  
 
Insofar as allegation of previous animosity on account of 
alleged demand of bribe by one of the members of the police party, 
against whom, the petitioner claims to have moved some application 
is concerned, nothing is on the record to even obliquely suggest an 
ongoing previous rancor, prompting the police to impose a false 
recovery of a substance with a price tag rather huge in terms; the 
plea surfaced, surprisingly late in the day without any attempt to the 
departmental recourse and, thus, at best can be viewed as an 
afterthought and at worst a ploy to subvert the prosecution. Even 
during the trial, the petitioner did not pick courage to enter the 
witness box in disproof of charge or to drive home his plea with a 
view to discharge adverse statutory presumption provided in section 
29 of the Act ibid.   
 
On our independent analysis of the record, we have not been 
able to take a view than the one concurrently taken by the Courts 
below. Petition fails. Leave declined.  
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
4th March, 2022 
Azmat/-