The Peshawar High Court delivered a crucial judgment in Abdul Baqi and Another vs The State (2020 P Cr. L J 321), which dealt with narcotics recovery (Narcotics Possession Presumption) under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997. Specifically, the court examined whether the accused were rightfully convicted for heroin concealed in a vehicle.
Facts of the Case
On February 4, 2015, police received a tip-off about heroin smuggling via a pickup truck. Consequently, authorities intercepted the vehicle near Kohat. Upon inspection, they discovered a double-layered floor in the truck. Afterward, the police took both the vehicle and the two accused—Abdul Baqi (driver) and Juma Din (front-seat passenger)—to the station.
Using an electric cutter, officers opened hidden cavities and recovered 54 packets of heroin (1 kg each). As a result, the prosecution argued that both accused knowingly transported the drugs, leading to their conviction under Section 9(c) of CNSA.
Key Legal Issues – Narcotics Possession Presumption
The court examined three critical questions:
- First, was Abdul Baqi (the driver) responsible for the narcotics found in the vehicle?
- Second, did Juma Din (the passenger) have conscious knowledge of the hidden drugs?
- Finally, was the prosecution’s evidence strong enough to prove guilt beyond doubt?
Court’s Decision on Abdul Baqi (Driver)
The court upheld Abdul Baqi’s conviction, relying on Section 29 of CNSA, which presumes that a person in possession of a vehicle containing narcotics is responsible unless proven otherwise.
Why Abdul Baqi Was Held Liable
- Since he was the driver in control of the vehicle, the court held him accountable.
- Moreover, the hidden compartments suggested deliberate concealment.
- Additionally, the prosecution’s witnesses (police officers and chemical examiners) provided consistent testimony.
- Furthermore, the FSL report confirmed the substance was heroin, strengthening the case.
The court cited Ghulam Qadir v. The State (PLD 2006 SC 61), ruling that a driver cannot escape liability for contraband found in their vehicle.
Court’s Decision on Juma Din (Passenger)
Unlike Abdul Baqi, the court acquitted Juma Din, emphasizing that mere presence in the vehicle did not prove his involvement.
Why Juma Din Was Given Benefit of Doubt
- First, no drugs were found on his personal possession.
- Second, the prosecution failed to prove his conscious knowledge of the hidden heroin.
- Finally, the court referenced Shahzada’s Case (2010 SCMR 841), stating that passengers cannot be convicted without evidence of active participation.
Legal Principles Established
1. Presumption of Possession Under Section 29 CNSA
Under this law, courts assume that a person in control of a vehicle containing narcotics is guilty unless they can disprove this presumption.
2. Benefit of Doubt in Criminal Trials
If any reasonable doubt exists, courts must favor the accused.
3. Quality of Evidence Over Quantity of Drugs
Rather than focusing only on the amount of drugs, courts must assess credible evidence to ensure a fair trial.
Conclusion
This judgment clarifies two key aspects of narcotics cases:
- Drivers bear responsibility for drugs found in their vehicles.
- However, passengers must have proven knowledge of hidden contraband to be convicted.
Ultimately, the ruling ensures fair application of narcotics laws while protecting innocent individuals from wrongful convictions.
For professional assistance with criminal law services and related legal matters, contact Khalil & Associates, Advocates & Legal Consultant. You can reach him at:
Phone: +92-316-1829946 | +92-307-2732223
Email: contact@osamakhalillaw.com | contact@khalilassociates.org