Ghulam Haider Vs The State etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl. Appeal No. 51392 of 2026

Ghulam Haider Vs. The State and two others S.No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or proceeding proceeding. counsel, where necessary.

14.09.2026 Mr. Raheel Riaz, Advocate for the appellant. Hafiz Muhammad Asghar, Deputy Prosecutor General, on Court’s call.

Through this appeal filed in terms of section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the order dated 23.05.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, whereby the application for de- sealing of the case property as made by the appellant during the cross-examination of Muhammad Zeeshan, S.I. (PW-1), was rejected by the learned trial court, has been assailed.

2.The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is facing the trial of the case instituted upon the police report related to the case FIR No. 290 of 2025, registered at the Police Station Massan, District Jhang and after the investigation of the case, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and the charge was framed against the appellant which was denied by him. After the denial of the charge, the learned trial court proceeded to summon the prosecution witnesses. During the examination of Muhammad Zeeshan S.I. (PW-1), the learned counsel for the appellant, made an application to the learned trial court to de-seal the sealed parcels of the narcotic substance, however, that application of the appellant was rejected, hence, the instant appeal.

Crl. Appeal No. 51392 of 2026

3.The learned counsel for the appellant inter-alia contended that that the order dated 23.05.2026, passed by the learned trial court, whereby the request of the appellant to de-seal the case property was rejected, is liable to be set aside being against the facts and law; that as an accused facing the trial of the case, the law provided that the appellant could validly examine the sealed parcels said to contain the narcotic substance, however, the learned trial court refused the said request of the appellant.

4.The learned Deputy Prosecutor General on Court’s call fairly conceded that the accused can be allowed to examine the sealed parcels said to contain the narcotic substance and confront the prosecution witness in this regard.

5.We have the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance.

6.A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant is facing the trial of the case instituted upon the police report related to the case FIR No. 290 of 2025, registered at the Police Station Massan, District Jhang and after the investigation of the case, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and the charge was framed against the appellant which was denied by him. After the denial of the charge, the learned trial court proceeded to summon the prosecution witnesses. During the examination of Muhammad Zeeshan S.I. (PW-1), the learned counsel for the appellant, made an application to the learned trial court to de-seal the sealed parcels of the narcotic substance, however, that application of the appellant was rejected. This is a fact that during the course of cross-examination of Muhammad Zeeshan,

Crl. Appeal No. 51392 of 2026

S.I. (PW-1), the complainant of the case, the appellant sought the permission of the court for examining the three sealed parcels said to contain the remaining quantity of the recovered narcotic substance; however, that application was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that if such examination was allowed at this stage, it would delay the proceedings of the trial. It is a fact that the prosecution evidence is still being recorded by the learned trial court and only if the learned counsel for the accused had been allowed to examine the three sealed parcels said to contain the remaining quantity of the recovered narcotic from the appellant during the cross-examination of Muhammad Zeeshan, S.I. (PW-1) the complainant of the case, it would not ever had led to the delay in the proceedings of the trial rather to the contrary, the refusal of the learned trial court to allow the learned counsel for the appellant to not only examine the said three sealed parcels said to contain the remaining quantity of the recovered narcotic but also to confront the witness with its contents indeed has now resulted in delay in the conclusion of the trial. The very reason for which the learned trial court refused the request of the accused has resulted in delay in the conclusion of the trial. We have also considered whether case property could have been exhibited by the learned trial court without de-sealing and without showing the same to the witness and other concerned. In this connection we may observe that word "exhibit" is legally defined as bring forward, bring to light, bring to notice, bring to view, demonstrate, disclose, display, evidence, evince, exhibere, exponere, expose, express, feature, indicate, lay bare, lay open, make clear, make known, make obvious, make plain, manifest, offer for inspection, open up, point out, present, present for consideration, present

Crl. Appeal No. 51392 of 2026

to view, produce, proponere, reveal, reveal to public notice, set forth, show, submit in evidence, uncover, unveil. Definition of "exhibit" is given in Duhaime's Law Dictionary is as under:

"Exhibit: a document or thing produced for inspection of the Court; or shown to a witness when giving evidence or referred to in deposition; or a document referred to in, but not annexed to, an affidavit."

The word "exhibit" defined in Black's Law Dictionary, is as under:-

"A document, record or other tangible object formally introduced as evidence in Court".

From the above-mentioned definitions, it is clear that exhibit means a thing produced for inspection of the Court; or shown to a witness when giving evidence or referred to its deposition and it does not mean the parcel, piece of cloth or bag shown to the witness. In the instant case, the accused/appellant is allegedly burdened with the allegation of possessing the huge quantity of narcotic substance therefore, the entire case property produced in the learned trial court must be opened in the learned trial court so that the witnesses and other concerned could see the same. In the instant case, without opening the sealed parcels, the learned trial Judge has illegally exhibited the case property without showing it to the witnesses. How the learned trial court exhibited the case property without its formal exhibition in the Court has not been explained. In this case, the learned trial court instead of showing the case property in open court to all concerned, refused to open or de-seal the parcels. This order further depicts that the case property was not opened in the Court even on the request of the learned defence counsel.

Crl. Appeal No. 51392 of 2026

Furthermore, the refusal to expose the case property in open Court is even against the mandate of Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973. The concept of fair trial has always been the golden principle of the administration of justice. Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973 provides that "for the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process." Hence, request for de-sealing of case property in an open Court is, certainly, a step forward towards the concept of a fair trial, which could not be denied to an accused in any circumstances, as refusal of the same would be deemed to be a denial of his right to have a fair trial in all the situations, which under no canon of justice could be withheld, Even otherwise without any lawful justification, the learned trial court cannot decide the case only on presumptions and surmises. Under the law, it is a right of the accused facing the trial to confront a witness with the document produced before the learned trial court and especially any sealed parcels of the recovered narcotic substance which, according to the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Zeeshan, S.I. (PW-1), were also prepared by him and not allowing the accused an opportunity to confront the said witness with the contents of the said three sealed parcels said to contain the remaining quantity of the recovered narcotic would definitely result in prejudicing the accused in the defence of the charge against him. The charge being serious and entailing severe punishment, the policy of law requires that full opportunity be granted to the accused so as to prove his stance during the course of the trial and the said opportunity cannot be withheld or smothered in any

Crl. Appeal No. 51392 of 2026

manner. It is trite that an act of court should not prejudice any party.

7.In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed and the learned trial court shall allow the accused the examination of the three sealed parcels said to contain the remaining quantity of the recovered narcotic substance as produced before the learned trial court by the witness namely Muhammad Zeeshan, T/SI

(PW-1).

(MUHAMMAD JAWAD ZAFAR) (SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM)

JUDGE JUDGE

Rashid

Approved for Reporting

Judge