Noreen Bibi VS The State etc.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Crl. Appeal No.204/2026

Noreen Bibi Versus The State

Appellant By : Mr. Muhammad Illyas, Malik Qatada Jamal and Faisal Nawaz Advocates.

Respondent By: Mr. Adnan Ali, DDPP.

Mr. Muhammad Khan, ASI, P.S. Golra.

Date of hearing: 24-9-2026.

SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND, J.- Through the titled criminal appeal, filed in terms of Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “CNSA”), the appellant impugns judgment dated 19.06.2026 (“Impugned Judgment”), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Islamabad (West), in FIR No.149/25, dated 06.04.2025, registered under Sections 9(1)6(c) read with Section 15 of the CNSA at Police Station Golra Shareef, Islamabad. Through the Impugned Judgment, the learned trial court convicted the appellant Noreen Bibi under Section 9(1)6(c) of the CNSA and sentenced to undergo 10 years simple imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.500,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo 04 months simple imprisonment.

2.The prosecution case, as set out in the complaint (Exh.PC/1), is that on 06.04.2025 Sub-Inspector Ameer Ali Soomro (PW-3) was on patrol with other police officials, including Lady Constable Asmat Tahira (PW-1), Constable Zubair (PW-3) and Constable Hasham Ali (PW-6). On receiving spy information that a woman carrying heroin was approaching her house in Bhekar Fateh Bukhsh, Transformer Wali Gali, the party proceeded to the identified place and apprehended the appellant with the assistance of the lady constable. It was further alleged that

Crl. Appeals No.204/2026

members of her family resisted the police, injured a member of the party and fled while firing into the air. According to the prosecution, the appellant’s personal search led to recovery of 1,810 grams of heroin. Two grams were separated as a sample for chemical analysis, and the sample and remaining substance were sealed and taken into possession. The complaint was then sent to the police station through PW-3, where the FIR (Exh.PC) was registered by Sub-Inspector Tallat Mehmood

(PW-7).

3.Charge was framed against the appellant on 06.01.2026. The prosecution examined eight witnesses: Asmat Tahira (PW-1), Tallat Mehmood (PW-2), Ameer Ali Soomro SI (PW-3), Manzoor Subhani (PW-4), Ghulam Rasool (PW-5), Hasham Ali (PW-6), Tallat Mehmood (PW-7) and Shahid Asghar (PW-8). It also produced the complaint (Exh.PC/1), FIR (Exh.PC), personal-search recovery memo (Exh.PB), road certificates (Exh.PE, Exh.PF and Exh.F/1), and the report of the National Forensic Science Agency, referred to in the record as Exh.PJ.

4.In her statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., recorded on 15.06.2026, the appellant denied the allegation and claimed innocence. She did not make a statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. In defence, she produced a copy of an application to the SSP (Exh.DA), a copy of a petition under Sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. (Exh.DB), and another application to the SSP, as Exh.PDC. After concluding the trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced her as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State have been heard and the record perused with their able assistance.

6.The initial version in the FIR (Exh.PC) is that the police party was on patrol “in police station” duty when it received spy information and proceeded to the place where the appellant was allegedly apprehended. In their examination-in- chief, PW-2 and PW-3 placed themselves at Bhakar Fateh Bukhsh, within the

Crl. Appeals No.204/2026

jurisdiction of Police Station Golra Sharif. PW-2 went further in cross-examination and stated that, when the information was received, the party was already present in Transformer Wali Gali, Bhakar Fateh Bukhsh. He also stated that, before receiving the information, the party had checked other persons while on patrol duty. PW-1 gave a different account of her presence with the raiding party. According to her, she was called to the police station at about 07:00 p.m.; her husband took her there; and she thereafter proceeded with the police officials to the place of occurrence. Her account does not fit the version that the complete raiding party was already patrolling at Bhakar Fateh Bukhsh when the information was received. The contradiction is material because PW-1 is the official through whose assistance the appellant was allegedly apprehended and personally searched.

7.The FIR shows four members of the raiding party, whereas PW-1 stated in cross-examination that six or seven persons were present. PW-2 stated that the appellant attempted to escape and was apprehended by the lady constable. Ameer Ali Soomro, SI, contradicted that account in cross-examination by stating that the appellant did not attempt to escape. PW-2 admitted that there was darkness when the appellant was apprehended. Ameer Ali Soomro, SI, admitted that no source of light was mentioned either in his statement or in the unscaled site plan (Exh.PG). The prosecution thus gave no account of the light in which the appellant was identified and the alleged recovery, weighing, separation of the sample, sealing and preparation of the recovery memo were carried out.

8.Ameer Ali Soomro, SI (PW-3), stated that he separated two grams of heroin as a sample, sealed the parcels with the seal “AM”, prepared the recovery memo (Exh.PA), and thereafter handed over the documents, case property and custody of the appellant to Ghulam Rasool, SI (PW-5). Manzoor Subhani (PW-4) stated in examination-in-chief that Ghulam Rasool handed him two sealed parcels on 06.04.2025 for deposit in the malkhana. In cross-examination, however, PW-4 stated that Ameer Ali Soomro had handed him the parcel on that date. He again reaffirmed that it was Ameer Ali Soomro who handed him the sample on

Crl. Appeals No.204/2026

06.04.2025. The witnesses have, therefore, given irreconcilable accounts of who delivered the sample for deposit in the malkhana.

9.Ameer Ali Soomro, SI, stated that Ghulam Rasool handed over to him the sample parcels on 10.04.2025 for onward transmission to the forensic agency. He could not deposit them that day and deposited them on 11.04.2025. Manzoor Subhani (PW-4), on the other hand, stated that Ameer Ali Soomro himself received the sample from him for transmission on 11.04.2025. Their statements are contradictory as to who issued the sample, to whom it was issued, and when it left the malkhana. The prosecution evidence does not account for the custody of the sample between its stated removal on 10.04.2025 and its deposit with the forensic agency on 11.04.2025.

10.The prosecution witnesses differ about their location when the information was received, the joining and number of officials present, and the appellant’s conduct when apprehended. The recovery is said to have taken place in darkness, without any source of light being identified. The sample passed through several hands between its recovery on 06.04.2025 and its deposit with the forensic agency on 11.04.2025. The prosecution witnesses have not given a consistent account of its deposit in the malkhana or its later removal. In particular, the evidence does not satisfactorily explain the movement and custody of the parcel on 10.04.2025. In Ikramullah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the prosecution fails to establish the safe custody of the recovered substance and safe transmission of its sample, the chemical examiner’s report cannot provide a secure basis for conviction

11.In a reported judgment dated 18.04.2025 rendered by the Hon’bel Supreme Court in the case of Ameenullah and another v. The State and another (Crl. Appeal No.525/2022) held has dealt with the question of safe custody of the recovered narcotic substances and dispatch of the sample to the laboratory. It was held that the positive report of the chemical examiner loses its evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon unless the safe custody and transmission from the stage

Crl. Appeals No.204/2026

of recovery till its final transmission to the office of the chemical examiner has been established through unimpeachable evidence. While addressing a specific question i.e. “Was effect of failure on the part of the prosecution so fatal that the petitioners will become entitled to the benefit of doubt as of right and earn acquittal from the charges framed against them?”, it was held that the initial burden rests on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance recovered from the accused was a narcotic drug. This requires proof of the recovery, separation of representative samples from the entire recovered quantity, their sealing, safe custody at the police station, and safe transmission to the government analyst. Each link must be established through reliable evidence, including evidence of who deposited the case property in the malkhana, who removed it, and who delivered the samples for analysis. A positive chemical examiner’s report cannot cure an unexplained break in that chain, because its reliability depends on proof that the samples examined were those taken from the alleged recovery. The presumption under Section 29 of CNSA arises only after the prosecution has discharged its initial burden; it cannot supply missing proof of recovery or custody. Where the recovery witnesses give doubtful accounts and the custody of the samples or case property is not established, the chemical analysis report cannot safely support a conviction.

12.The crux of the foregoing discussion is that the prosecution witnesses did not give consistent accounts of the place where they were present when the spy information was received. Their statements also contradict each other regarding the number of members of the raiding party. The recovery proceedings were conducted in darkness, and admittedly no source of light was mentioned in the evidence. There is a glaring contradiction in the statements of the witnesses regarding the handling of the recovered narcotic substance, particularly as to who handed it over to the concerned official for safe custody in the malkhana. No explanation was offered as to how the sample parcel was dealt with after it was collected from the malkhana on 10.04.2025 and before it was deposited with the Chemical Examiner on 11.04.2025. Nor did any evidence come on record to establish that it remained in safe custody during the intervening period. These circumstances render both the

Crl. Appeals No.204/2026

alleged recovery and the safe custody of the sample doubtful, the benefit of which must go to the appellant as a matter of right.

13.For what has been discussed above, the appeal is allowed; the Impugned Judgment dated 19.06.2026 is set aside; and the appellant, Noreen Bibi, is acquitted of the charge. She shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) (SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND)

JUDGE JUDGE

Announced in open Court, on 30th day of September, 2026.

JUDGE JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

Tanveer Ahmed/*