Naseem Kousar vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 259 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Naseem Kousar VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody of case property---Safe transmission of samples to laboratory not proved---Prosecution case was that 2200 grams heroin in two packets was recovered from the possession of accused-appellant---Complainant and arecovery witness deposed that on 14.05.2023 he apprehended the appellant and recovered 2200 grams of heroin; that 55 grams were separated from each packet of heroin and prepared two sealed sample parcels for chemical analysis; then complainant sealed the remaining heroin in two separate sealed parcels at the spot in the presence of witnesses and secured all four parcels vide recovery memo---When the Investigating Officer reached the spot, he handed over the case property and custody of the appellant to him---Investigating Officer testified that on his return to the police station, he entrusted the case property to Moharrar for safekeeping in the police station's Malkhana---Moharrar confirmed that he kept it there and, on 16.05.2023, handed over sealed sample parcels to complainant for transmission to the Forensic Science Agency, who delivered them on the same day---Moharrar further testified that on 19.05.2023, he handed over the sealed parcels of the remaining case property to complainant for their deposit in the Malkhana, who delivered them there on the same day---Prosecution also produced the recovered narcotic in Court during the trial and exhibited them in evidence through a competent witness---However, said oral assertions and the production of case property were insufficient to establish safe custody or secure transmission unless supported by documentary evidence---Prosecution failed to produce Register Nos. II or XIX, or the Road Certificates, or tendered certified copies thereof, to establish that the case property remained in safe custody and was securely transmitted to the forensic laboratory, as required under the Police Rules and jurisprudence on the subject---Said omission undermined the prosecution's case---Moreover, it could not be treated as a mere procedural lapse or curable irregularity---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Naseem Kousar vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 259 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ