IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED  
 
 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.239/2020 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Islamabad High Court,  
Islamabad in Crl.No.A.255/2019) 
 
 
Mian Khalid Perviz 
 
… 
Appellant 
 
Versus 
 
The State through Special Prosecutor, ANF 
& another  
… Respondents 
 
 
 
 
For the Appellant 
: 
Raja RizwanAbbassi, ASC 
Syed RifaqatHussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
For the State 
: 
Mr. Inaam Amin Minhas, Spl. Prosecutor, ANF 
Ch. IhteshamulHaq, Spl. Prosecutor, ANF 
alongwithRaja Shoaib, Inspector, ANF 
Naseer, S.I., ANF 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
26.10.2020 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
 
 
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J-. 
 
 
The Appellant was booked and tried in case FIR No.72 dated 
27th May, 2018 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of 
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA) at Police Station, Anti-
Narcotics Force (ANF)/RD, (North) Rawalpindi for an alleged 
recovery of 12 packets of charas (from specially built two secret cavities, 
six packets in each) weighing 12 kilograms. After a regular trial, 
Appellant was convicted under Section 9(c), CNSA, 1997 and 
sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,00,000/-, 
CRL.A.239/2020 
-:2:-
(One 
Million) in default whereof to further undergo simple 
imprisonment for one year vide judgment dated 10th July, 2019 
passed by learned Judge, Special Court (Control of Narcotic 
Substances) Islamabad (Trial Court). Benefit of Section 382-B 
Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. His conviction and sentence was 
upheld by Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad 
by dismissing his Appeal vide judgment dated 11th December, 
2019. Hence instant Appeal with Leave of this Court dated 17th 
April, 2020. 
 
2. 
Learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
Appellant, 
learned 
Special 
Prosecutors, ANF were heard  and record of the case was perused. 
Perusal of the record reveals that a huge quantity of ‘charas’ 
weighing 12-kilograms was recovered from the secret cavities, 
specially built, of Toyota Hilux, Vigo Registration No.BF145, 
Islamabad. FIR noted above was registered; recovery memo and 
sample parcels were made and then sent for chemical analysis. 
Appellant was arrested. After investigation of the case, Appellant 
was sent to the court of Special Judge (CNS), Islamabad to face the 
trial. Prosecution in support of its case produced five witnesses. 
Record of the case would further reflect that prosecution proved its 
case and established the recovery of narcotics, registration of case, 
safe custody of the recovered substance and onward transmission 
of sample parcels for chemical analysis and then a chemical 
analysis report from ‘National Institute of Health (Drugs Control and 
Traditional 
Medicines 
Division) (NIH), Islamabad’ confirming the 
recovered substance to be ‘charas’. The Trial Court, while 
considering the entire evidence, returned a verdict of guilty for 
CRL.A.239/2020 
-:3:-
Appellant, as noted above, and the same was maintained and 
upheld by the High Court in Appeal.  
 
3. 
Leave to Appeal was granted on 17th April, 2020 by this 
Court for re-appraisal of entire evidence on the ground that only 
evidence of prosecution was considered by the courts below while 
recording conviction of the Appellant whereas defence evidence 
adduced by the Appellant was not considered /evaluated in its true 
perspective.  
 
4. 
We, in the given circumstances, heard the learned counsel 
for the Appellant in detail. Learned counsel could not point out any 
single piece of misreading or non-reading of the material evidence 
produced by the prosecution. We may also observe that the Trial 
Court, while recording a conviction of the Appellant, has discussed 
the defence evidence in Paras-15 & 16 of its judgment dated 10th 
July, 2019 whereas the Appellate Court while concurring and 
maintaining the conviction so recorded by the Trial Court has not 
only considered the defence plea of the Appellant but has also 
discussed his statement on oath recorded under Section 340(2) of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) and then the entire 
defence evidence.  
 
5. 
Re-appraisal of entire evidence led by the prosecution 
reflects that prosecution was successful in proving its case beyond 
any reasonable doubt. The defence evidence led by the Appellant 
was also discussed and considered by the Trial Court and the 
Appellate Court had concurred on the point that defence had failed 
to rebut the evidence of prosecution. Since leave was granted only 
CRL.A.239/2020 
-:4:-
on the point that defence evidence led by the Appellant was not 
appraised properly, so we just for the safe administration of justice 
have also gone through the entire defence evidence. Besides 
general denials of the occurrence, Appellant in his statement under 
Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. has also alleged his abduction on 26th May, 
2018 by the ANF officials, false involvement on the basis of malice 
and his refusal to accept the demand of illegal gratification of 
Rs.05 million made by Inspector Shakeel. He also leveled 
allegations of dacoity/robbery of different articles including prize 
bonds from his house on 26th May, 2018 and thereafter he was 
allegedly taken/shifted to P.S. North, ANF along with his vehicle. 
He also produced ten witnesses in his defence including his 
brother.  
 
6. 
Some of the documentary evidence in defence produced by 
the Appellant was recorded by automated information system 
which according to law is admissible under Article 164 of the 
Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984  (P.O. No.X of 1984) but in case of 
denial, law requires that such evidence generated through the 
system ibid must be proved in accordance with law. The Courts 
have been empowered to receive and make use of such evidence 
collected through modern technologies. Articles 46-A and 78-A of 
the Order ibid as well as the provisions of Electronic Transactions 
Ordinance (LI of 2002) provide procedure to receive and prove such 
evidence. Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of 
Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 SC 675) 
and Ali Raza v. State(2019 SCMR 1982). 
 
CRL.A.239/2020 
-:5:-
7. 
The defence evidence recorded by Najam Riaz (DW-1) and 
Nouman Khan Bangash (DW-2), pertains to calls data of 
Appellant’s mobile phones and that of the cell phones of 
Investigating Officer (I.O.) (Ex. DB to DE and DJ). A perusal of 
these documents would reveal that these were general in nature. 
Neither relevant entries were pointed out in the data nor the voice 
record transcripts were produced which, if available, could have 
made a point. There is nothing on the record in this regard to help 
out the Appellant in support of his allegations made in defence. 
Mere production of CDR DATA without transcripts of the calls or 
end to end audio recording cannot be considered/used as evidence 
worth reliance. Besides the call transcripts, it should also be 
established on the record that callers on both the ends were the 
same persons whose calls data is being used in evidence. While 
considering such type of evidence extra care is required to be taken 
by the Courts as advancement of science and technology, on the 
other hand, has also made it very convenient and easy to edit and 
make changes of one’s choice as highlighted and discussed in the 
case of Ishtiaq Ahmad Mirza supra. We also can lay hand on the 
case of Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274) in this 
regard. So, the CDR DATA produced by the said witnesses is of no 
help to the Appellant and cannot be termed as an evidence worth 
reliance to shatter the direct evidence adduced by the prosecution.  
 
8. 
The other important piece of evidence so produced was 
tracking data of a vehicle from 25th to 27th May, 2018 (Ex.-DK/1-
14). Again these are the electronically generated documents of V-
Tracking (Pvt) Ltd. Company brought on the record by the Zonal 
CRL.A.239/2020 
-:6:-
Manager of the company, Jabran Ahmad, DW-3. This data does 
not mention the details of vehicle in question or its owner. No 
doubt this data reflects different locations but apparently nothing 
could confirm that it is with regard to the same vehicle of the 
Appellant. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the 
Appellant had pointed out certain entries in the bottom of 
Ex.DK/12 (page 121 of paper book) and few entries on the top of 
Ex.DK/13 (page 122 of paper book) which reflect that location of a 
vehicle till 11:11:01 pm, on 26th May, 2018 was “0.21 KM SE of 
ABL Gulzar-e- Quaid Branch Chaklala, Rawalpindi, Punjab, PK”. His 
contention was that it is the vehicle of Appellant BF-145 near P.S. 
ANF. But the record so relied does not confirm that the record 
under consideration is of the vehicle in question. DW-10 Mian 
Majid Perviz, brother of Appellant, produced documents pertaining 
to Takaful and installation of tracker in the vehicle BF-145, 
Islamabad owned by Appellant as Ex.DW.11/1-2. But there is 
nothing on the record which could show that Ex.DK/1-14 pertain 
to the vehicle shown in Ex.DW11/1-2. 
 
 
No doubt this is the important evidence if proved and 
established on the record, then it goes to the root of the case and 
sufficient 
for 
indentation 
and 
completely 
diminishing 
the 
prosecution evidence. The two types of documents noted above do 
not connect each other and apparently do not support the stance 
of the Appellant. Since Zonal Office of the said tracking company is 
in Islamabad and to clarify certain questions, officer of the 
company was asked to send any technical expert to clarify the 
record and answer some important questions cropped up during 
CRL.A.239/2020 
-:7:-
writing the judgment. The person appeared in response was the 
same person who had brought the record during trial, Jabran 
Ahmad, Zonal Manager, DW-3. He in reply to our query submitted 
that what is tracked by their system or what helps in tracking is 
the tracking device fitted in the vehicle. If the said device with the 
help of an expert or with collusion of the company’s employee, is 
removed from that vehicle and refitted in any other vehicle without 
intimation to the tracking company then in that case, the vehicle 
to be tracked by the system would be the vehicle in which the 
tracking device is refitted and the movement of original vehicle 
would not be traced. He further explained that normally it is very 
difficult even for the owner to trace the device fitted in the vehicle 
but possibility of removal and refitting cannot be ruled out. At this 
juncture, he further explained that whenever power supply to the 
device from the battery of the vehicle is disconnected or current 
supply line to the device is removed, the system of the company 
receives an alert through a fully automated process in this regard. 
He pointed out such alerts five in numbers appearing on Ex.DK/13 
(page 122 of the paper book) which show zero, zero entries of 
latitude and longitude. When this being the position, possibility of 
intervention by the Appellant side cannot be ruled out. These 
readings show some sort of interference but the record is silent as 
to who was responsible for such interference. This situation 
creates a serious doubt on the stance of Appellant. The specific 
plea taken by the Appellant legally has to be proved by the 
Appellant without any loophole and ambiguity specially when there 
is no ill-will, mala fide or any other grudge on the part of the other 
party/prosecution. We, while scanning the entire record, are 
CRL.A.239/2020 
-:8:-
unable to understand as to why the Appellant was chosen for 
alleged abduction on 26th May, 2018 at daytime and then raid and 
alleged dacoity/robbery and demand of illegal gratification and 
that too in the month of Holy Ramadan. Besides the above, no 
separate report was lodged in the police station for these 
wrongdoings of the ANF. The other disturbing factor is that DW-10, 
Mian Majid Perviz, who is the brother of Appellant, claims to be 
present at the time of alleged abduction of the Appellant from the 
Shell Petrol Pump at 3:30 pm on 26th May, 2018 and he reported 
the matter at 15:40 on 27th May, 2018 (Ex.D-11/B). He also moved 
an application to the concerned SHO/Police Station, Aabpara, 
Islamabad (Ex.DW-11/A) on 7th June, 2018 to trace the location of 
mobile phones and the vehicle of the Appellant. This appears to be 
an attempt of maneuvering evidence in defence. It is hardly to 
believe that till 7th June, 2018 he or the family of Appellant was 
unaware of the recovery of narcotics. Details of Takaful of the 
vehicle and installation of tracking device by the tracking company 
ibid were also produced by DW-10 (Ex-DW-11/1-2). Investigating 
Officer of the case Raja Shoaib, Inspector, PS-ANF, during personal 
search of the Appellant  had also recovered ‘Inter-Services 
Intelligence (ISI)’ Card (P/6) and a stamp in the name of Appellant 
‘AD Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi’ (P/15). The Appellant during 
the investigation disclosed that these were fake and on such 
disclosure other Sections of Penal Code were also inserted in the 
FIR. The other witnesses with oral evidence produced in defence 
have no evidentiary value in presence of prosecution evidence. 
Appellant in his statement under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. alleged 
that at the time of his abduction his son and driver were also with 
CRL.A.239/2020 
-:9:-
him who were let off by the ANF staff but both were not produced 
in defence rather DW-10 who was not named by Appellant was 
produced. With all the above short comings in defence evidence it 
becomes very difficult to believe such evidence. DW-3, Zonal 
Manager of the tracking company during his statement had also 
produced map of movement history of the vehicle comprising three 
sheets Ex.DL 01-03 but the map available on the paper book 
consist of (five sheets) (from page 124 to 128) without exhibit mark. 
We are unable to rely or consider such documents which are not 
part of the record. Original record of the case was perused. The 
map produced during trial (Ex.DW 01-03) is different from these 
documents. The exhibited map also is of no help to the Appellant 
as the same have the similar shortcomings as discussed above. So, 
we are of the considered view that the defence evidence so led by 
the Appellant is not of such credence and trustworthy that it could 
shatter 
the 
confidence 
inspiring 
evidence 
of 
prosecution. 
Resultantly, this appeal, having no merit, is dismissed. 
 
These are the reasons for our short order of even date which 
is re-produced herein below:-  
 
“For reasons to be recorded later, the instant criminal 
appeal is dismissed.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad,  
26th October,2020 
Sarfraz/- 
‘Approved for reporting’