QAISER alias AAUN vs State S — 2026 PLD 47 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.

QAISER alias AAUN VS State S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Examination of an accused---Accused not confronted with full extent of the incriminating evidence and circumstances---Effect---Fundamental procedural flaw---Appellant convicted under S. 9(c) of the CNSA, 1997, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, etc.---Argument of the appellant was that during the appellant's examination under S. 342 of the Cr.P.C., he was not confronted with the full extent of the incriminating evidence and circumstances upon which his conviction was ultimately based, which deprived him of the opportunity to effectively challenge or explain the incriminatory evidence used against him---Validity---If a piece of incriminating evidence or a circumstance is not brought to the attention of the accused during his examination under S. 342, Cr.P.C., such evidence or circumstance cannot be relied upon to secure his conviction---No one should be condemned based on evidence he has not had the chance to confront or challenge---To act otherwise would be turning a fair trial into a hollow process---In the present case, evidence adduced by the prosecution though reveals that the prosecution's narrative/version has been both comprehensively and convincingly substantiated, however, careful scrutiny of the appellant's statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., reveals that the appellant was not confronted with the fact that a sample had been separated from the bulk quantity of narcotic recovered, sealed into a parcel, nor with the fact that it was sent to the police station for storage in the storeroom---Furthermore, the appellant was not confronted with the vital details concerning the exact date on which the parcel was dispatched to the forensic lab, nor was he put the identity of the witness who carried and deposited the parcel there---Thus, the appellant was not duly confronted with the chain of safe custody---In our criminal jurisprudence governing narcotic cases, maintaining an unbroken chain of safe custody is the backbone of proving a case against the accused---Without this chain intact, the case risks falling apart at the seams, as the integrity of the evidence stands in question---If the accused has not been duly confronted with the chain of safe custody while examining him under S. 342, Cr.P.C., the same cannot be wielded to secure his conviction---Therefore, it was the prosecution's duty to establish an unbroken chain of custody with clear and compelling evidence, leaving no room for doubt and equally crucial was the obligation of the Trial Court to confront the appellant with the same during his examination under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---The Trial Court's handling of this crucial step leaves much to be desired---It was perfunctory, cursory, superficial, and fell woefully short of the requisite standard as mandated by S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Without confronting the appellant with this crucial piece of incriminating evidence, i.e. the chain of safe custody, the foundation of the case collapses, leaving no choice but to acquit him---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

QAISER alias AAUN vs State S — 2026 PLD 47 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD