ATTIQUE ULLAH vs State — 2026 SCMR 937 SUPREME-COURT

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

ATTIQUE ULLAH VS State. Ss. 9(d) & 11(c)---Possession and transportation of narcotic substances---Reappraisal of evidence---Contradictions in statements of witnesses---Safe custody and transmission of recovered contraband not established. Prosecution case was that one packet containing 1005 grams ICE/Amphetamine was recovered from beneath the driver's seat and 6000 grams chars in five packets was recovered from the trunk of vehicle driven by accused/petitioner. Trial Court convicted accused under Sections 9(d) and 11(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. High Court dismissed appeal. Validity: According to Seizing Officer, he himself took accused, vehicle, sealed parcels containing samples and case property to Police Station and handed over the same to Moharrir for safe custody. Contrary to this, Constable/recovery witness stated that he had taken Murasila and other documents along with case property to Police Station and his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Seizing Officer stated that after handing over case property to Moharrir, entry was made in Register No.19 in his presence. Contrary version was given by other police officials regarding handing over of accused and case property. Moharrir stated that Constable had brought Murasila, recovery memo and arrest card and FIR was registered on basis of Murasila. Contents of FIR and statement of Seizing Officer were inconsistent with statements of Constable and Moharrir. Contradictions in evidence of material prosecution witnesses created serious doubt regarding safe custody and transmission of samples and case property from place of recovery to Police Station. Prosecution failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of recovered narcotics with certainty. Such defect alone was sufficient to vitiate prosecution case and accused was entitled to acquittal. Petition was converted into appeal and allowed.

ATTIQUE ULLAH vs State — 2026 SCMR 937 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR