PESHAWAR: A single-member Peshawar High Court bench has declared the filming of the seizure of narcotics by law-enforcement agencies mandatory in light of its earlier judgement, and ruled that the recovery officer should give plausible reason for an omission.

Chief Justice Syed Mohammad Attique Shah declared: “We are living and breathing in Twenty-first Century, where every second person is well-equipped with modern technology like smart phones and advanced cameras etc., hence, in narcotics cases, where the seizing officers do not associate the private witnesses with the recovery proceedings, they are required to make videography of such narcotics recovery proceedings through their mobile phones in order to authenticate such recovery.

“Anyhow, if at all, the seizing officer or investigating officer is unable to make videography for any plausible reason or any reason beyond his control, he must record reasons for such omission in the investigation for appraisal of courts.”

He added that not only that the videography could be used as a strong and reliable evidence but it also would certainly avoid false implication of innocent persons especially in narcotics cases

Rules recovery officer shall give plausible reason for omission

The court issued the verdict on the bail petition of Mujahid Khan, who was arrested on May 18, 2025, by officials of the Sarband police station in Peshawar on the charge of smuggling 6kg of charas in a vehicle.

The bench took notice of the videography matter after the petitioner’s counsel Amjad Noor Khan contended that though in the FIR it had been alleged that the videography of the alleged occurrence was made by the complainant / seizing officer in his mobile phone, which was later on converted in a memory card but actually nothing was happened or done. He requested that the alleged video be played in court.

The bench then summoned the seizing and investigation officers, who were asked to play the said video. However, attempts were made to play the memory card but it was blank and could not be played.

The bench, in its detailed judgment, pointed out that the seizing officer, present in the court, was directed to play the alleged photograph from his mobile phone, in which it was allegedly saved but strange enough, the said video was also not available in his mobile phone.

It later summoned higher officers after which Peshawar Capital City Police Officer Qasim Khan appeared and promised a proper inquiry into the matter.

The bench directed him to conduct a proper and impartial inquiry in the matter through an honest and a high ranked police officer and furnish a final inquiry report within a fortnight.

The bench also granted bail to the petitioner on condition of furnishing two surety bonds of Rs 100,000 each.

It observed that videography could also be used in courts under the ‘silent witness’ principle, which meant that a video, photos or other recordings could be accepted as evidence even without a person coming to court to explain it as long as the video is proven to be real and unchanged.

“In narcotics matters, surely, strong and stringent actions are required to be taken against the persons dealing with narcotics business in order to protect the society especially the youth from drug addiction but simultaneously, it is the responsibility of police to remain honest, straightforward, truthful and impartial in controlling crimes,” the bench observed.

It added that no doubt, stringent law was necessary to control organised crimes like narcotics trafficking, however, at times its rigid provisions were misused by the law- enforcement agencies, which not only led to false implication of some innocent persons but caused their prolonged, unjustified and unlawful detention.

“The main concept behind recording video of the recovery proceedings is to make sure that only the real criminals / culprits are punished, and innocent people are not wrongly caught or made to suffer mentally, physically or financially because of fake recoveries,” it declared.

The court also ruled that once, the videography was made of the recovery proceedings, the same was liable to be made available before the Court being a ‘silent witness’ even at bail stage while disposing of the bail application of an accused failing which, the purpose behind such philosophy would become redundant.

It referred to a recent Supreme Court verdict in the Noor Muqadam murder case.

“The apex court elaborately discussed the scope of CCTV footage as a ‘silent witness’ and declared it could be admitted under the said theory.”

The bench also referred to a high court judgement in the Imdadullah versus State case wherein the provincial police officer, provincial director of the Anti-Narcotics Force and director general (excise and narcotics control) were directed to ensure that at all costs, the recovery by the respective police force in narcotics cases should be supported by videography, so that only the real culprits be kept behind the bars and punished while those innocent persons were not entangled in bogus recoveries.

Published in Dawn, June 28th, 2025