Najafi Law Associates Acts in High Court Appeal on Forensic Sampling in Narcotics Case
13 February 2026
13 February 2026
Our chambers represented by Barrister Haider Ali Najafi acted in a criminal appeal before the Lahore High Court arising from a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the central issue concerned the legal effect of sampling and proof of the alleged recovered substance.
The appeal required a close examination of the procedural framework governing recovery, sampling, and chemical examination of narcotics, particularly in cases where the alleged substance consists of multiple pieces or units. The Court considered whether, in the absence of separate sampling from each distinct piece, the entire alleged quantity could lawfully be attributed to the appellant.
The proceedings involved an analysis of the prosecution evidence, including the recovery witnesses and the laboratory report, and the application of settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, most notably in Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380). The Court reaffirmed that where narcotics are recovered in multiple pieces or packets, separate samples must be taken from each for independent chemical analysis, and that only the quantity actually sampled and proven can be treated as legally established.
Applying these principles, the Lahore High Court upheld the conviction only to the extent of the quantity that was properly sampled and chemically verified, and treated the remainder as unproven. In view of the proved quantity and the period already undergone, the Court modified the sentence accordingly while maintaining the conviction in principle.
This decision underscores the continued importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in narcotics cases and highlights how issues of sampling, chain of custody, and forensic proof can be decisive in appellate scrutiny. It also reflects the courts’ consistent approach that criminal liability and punishment must rest on evidence proved in accordance with law, rather than on assumptions or unverified quantities.