Hazar Khan vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 85 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

Hazar Khan VS State S. 9(2), Sr. No.9---Police Rules 1934, Chapter XXV, R. 25.2(3)---Police Order (22 of 2002), Art. 18---Possession and transportation of narcotic Substances---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant as Investigating Officer---Prosecution case was that 07-kilogram Methamphetamine (Ice) was recovered from the possession of accused---Record showed that the alleged contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellant by Police Officer who served as the Seizing Officer, complainant and Investigating Officer in case, giving him a three-in-one role---According to the law, the complainant and the accused were two opposing parties---Role of an Investigating Officer was to serve as an objective authority with the goal of uncovering the truth---An Investigating Officer could not be part of or a member of any party involved in the case they were investigating---Language of the Police Rules, 1934 required an Investigating Officer not to prematurely form an opinion on the facts, whether for or against any person, as this was impossible for an Investigating Officer who was also a party---Concept of honest investigation relied on impartiality and neutrality---Reason for separating the investigation wing from the operational wing of the police also stems from that principle, as reflected in Art.18 of the Police Order 2002; therefore, the element of honest, transparent and fair investigation was absent in the case---If that standard were applied to the case of the accused, it would be clear from the record that the complainant, acting as an Investigating Officer, could not be expected to be fair and transparent---Fair investigation was the fundamental right of the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 85 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Hazar Khan VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance that created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt entitled him to that benefit, not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 85 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Hazar Khan VS State S. 9(2), Sr. No.9---Possession and transportation of narcotic Substances---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of the recovered narcotic substance not proved---Prosecution case was that 07-kilogram Methamphetamine (Ice) was recovered from the possession of accused---Complainant and the Investigation Officer in the case stated that after recovery the parcels of case property and samples, he handed over the said parcels to Moharrar of the Malkhana at the police station---However, complainant did not name the Moharrar of the Malkhana to whom he handed over the parcels---Very stringent punishments had been provided under the provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; therefore, the provisions of the Act, 1997, were to be strictly construed---Prosecution in such cases was bound to prove its case beyond areasonable doubt and the benefit of even the slightest doubt in the case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, was to be extended to the accused---In cases under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, the prosecution must prove each link in the chain, from the recovery stage to the creation of sample parcels, their secure custody and the safe transfer of those parcels to the relevant laboratory---Prosecution must establish that chain; if any link was missing, the benefit must be given to the accused---Prosecution witness produced a copy of Registered No. XIX, however, a review of it revealed that it had not been appropriately maintained---No entry was made regarding the recovery of the alleged items from the appellant's possession nor did it specify who received the articles and when Columns 5 of Register No. XIX stated that every item placed in the storeroom should be recorded and the removal of any such item should also be noted in the appropriate column---However, copy of register XIX did not support the prosecution's case in that regard, as columns 6 and 7 of Register No. XIX showed that no responsible officer had signed to verify the entry and removal of the narcotic in question, including the sample parcels---Therefore, it was clear that the case property was not kept in safe custody, as column 05 was blank---As a result, the prosecution had compromised the safe custody and transfer of the alleged items---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 85 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Hazar Khan VS State S. 9(2), Sr. Nos. 9 & 20---Police Rules, 1934, R. 22.49(n)---Possession and transportation of narcotic Substances---Appreciation of evidence---Search warrant not obtained---Prosecution case was that 07-kilogram Methamphetamine (Ice) was recovered from the possession of accused---Prosecution's case relied on prior information and that too within the Court's timings---However, the complainant neither attempted to obtain search warrants as required by S.20 of the Act, 1997, nor provided any reason for not complying with S.20 of the Act, 1997---Similarly, the prior information was never recorded in Register No.II, as mandated by Rule 22.49(n) of Police Rules, 1934---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Hazar Khan vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 85 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ