The Sindh High Court has set aside conviction of 12 persons in a case pertaining to drugs smuggling. The appellants, Nabi Baksh Baloch and others, were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Control of Narcotics Substance Court for smuggling 170.35 kilogrammes (kg) of narcotics via sea route.
According to the prosecution, the customs authorities intercepted a boat along with 12 crew members after receiving information that huge quantity of narcotics was being smuggled through a wooden fishing boat. The customs authorities found 170.53kg of heroin hidden in coffee packets.
A counsel for the appellants argued that the safe custody and transmission of the narcotics was not proved at the trial, due to which the conviction could not be sustained. A customs special prosecutor said the facts of custody and transmission were presented before the trial court.
A division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Omar Sial after hearing the arguments observed that the date of seizure, a basic detail, was not clarified at the trial. The high court observed that a prosecution witness deposed that the contraband had been handed over to him by the Pakistan Maritime Security Agency (PMSA) on October 22, 2019 in an unsealed condition, expressed his ignorance about the date when the seizure was made.
The bench observed that the investigation officer had admitted that the operation was carried out by the PMSA and it was assumed that none of the customs officials were present in the open sea with the PMSA during the operation.
The SHC observed that the prosecution and investigation in the case had been one of the worst that it witnessed in recent years. The high court observed that it was the first case where a sizeable number of samples of narcotics were sent by post to the chemical analyst without ensuring or recording their safe custody and transmission.
The high court observed that safe custody and transmission were not proved at the trial while no explanation for the massive lapses was given. The SHC observed that it was now well settled that if there was a break in the custody, safekeeping or transmission, the convictions could not be sustained. The high court set aside the trial court order and ordered release of the appellants if they were not required in other cases.
