The chain of custody begins with the recovery of the seized drug by the Police and includes the separation of the representative sample (s) of the seized drug and their dispatch to the Narcotics Testing Laboratory.

 The chain of custody begins with the recovery of the seized drug by the Police and includes the separation of the representative sample (s) of the seized drug and their dispatch to the Narcotics Testing Laboratory. This chain of custody, is pivotal and the prosecution must establish that the chain of custody was unbroken, unsuspicious, indubitable, safe and secure. Any break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control of possession of the sample, will cast doubts on the safe custody and safe transmission of the sample(s) and will impair and vitiate the conclusiveness and reliability of the Report of the Government Analyst, thus, rendering it incapable of sustaining conviction.

A complete mechanism has been given in Rule 5 and 6 of The Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts Rules, 2001), the Chemical Examiner is required to adopt complete procedure and then the report is to be submitted after referring necessary protocols and mentioning the tests applied and their results. In the instant case, required test was not applied on the basis of which chemical examiner has concluded that the samples sent to him for chemical examination contained opium or charas. The said agency has failed to provide the details that how much quantity, he has tested and when the report is not prepared in the prescribed manner then it may not qualify to be called a report in the context of section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and such report of National Institute of Health, Drugs Control and Traditional Medicines Division, Islamabad, Pakistan would loses its sanctity and that cannot be relied upon for the purposes of conviction.

Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, deals with the temporary custody while section 32 provides for confiscation or otherwise of such vehicle at the conclusion of the trial.

Section 32 of the Act, 1997 deals with the final confiscation or release of the vehicle to the owner, after the conclusion of the trial, if he proves that he has no knowledge about the offence, which allegedly had been committed in the vehicle. Not only that an innocent owner of the vehicle is entitled to the return of the vehicle but the burden has been placed on the prosecution to establish that the owner had the knowledge of his vehicle being used in the crime. As far as the question of knowledge is concerned, undisputedly it is required to be proved by leading evidence and the learned trial Court can form such opinion after having taken into consideration the facts of the case.

Criminal Appeal No.1303 of 2019

(Shahadat Ali v. The State, etc.)

Criminal Appeal No. 2096 of 2019

(The State v. Shahadat Ali) &

Capital Sentence Reference No. 15-N of 2018

(The State v. Shahadat Ali)

Date of hearing:03.5.2023