Narcotics offences form one of the largest categories of criminal cases in Pakistan, yet they remain one of the least understood areas of law. Most cases never reach a full trial. Once bail is granted, both the police and the complainant often lose interest, and the file is quietly shelved.
What Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 Cover?
The Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997 is the main law governing narcotics offences in Pakistan, alongside special drug courts. It is a wide-ranging statute that:
Clearly defines controlled substances, removing earlier confusion over what counts as a narcotic
Sets out punishments under Section 9, split into three tiers based on quantity
Allows freezing of assets and international cooperation on evidence-sharing
Provides rules for searching premises and seizing narcotics
Penalises illegal or frivolous raids on private property
Punishments under Section 9 are based on weight:
Under 100 grams — up to 2 years (Section 9A)
100 grams to 1 kilogram — up to 7 years (Section 9B)
Over 1 kilogram — life imprisonment or death (Section 9C)
Since a landmark ruling involving a well-known smuggling case some years ago, courts have grown reluctant to hand down death sentences, particularly in heroin cases, and this caution now extends to hashish cases too.
Bail Decisions: Too Much Focus on Weight
Courts in Pakistan, including in Lahore, tend to decide bail applications largely on the weight of narcotics recovered. Above 1,200 grams, bail becomes difficult. Below that threshold, bail is usually granted.
This approach is flawed. Weight should be a factor in a bail decision, not the factor. Courts should also weigh:
Whether the case shows signs of false implication
Whether there are genuine grounds for further inquiry
The overall credibility of the prosecution’s version of events
False cases are a real problem. Political rivals have reportedly used anti-narcotics forums to settle personal scores, and once a case collapses at the bail stage, the weaknesses in the original investigation usually become obvious.
Drug Use in Schools and Universities: An Ignored Crisis
Anti-narcotics agencies have focused heavily on trafficking, while drug use itself, especially among students, has been largely ignored. Newer, more dangerous substances such as ice, ecstasy and cocaine are now common in colleges and universities in major cities, alongside more traditional drugs.
Random bag checks in schools have become routine in some areas, which says a lot about how widespread the problem has become. Parents are encouraged to stay alert: excessive pocket money, unsupervised mobile phone use, and a lack of boundaries all raise the risk of a child’s exposure to drugs.
Why Do So Many Narcotics Cases Collapse in Court?
Acquittal rates in narcotics cases, including those heard in Lahore’s courts, are high. Several recurring problems explain why:
1. Every FIR reads the same. Read one First Information Report and you have effectively read them all. The same script repeats: a tip-off, a raid party, an interception, and narcotics conveniently found in a bag, suitcase, or vehicle compartment. Advance information before an arrest is almost unique to narcotics cases and creates obvious scope for manipulation.
2. Convenient use of technology is missing. Airports around the world film every stage of a drug seizure, from arrest to recovery, since it is admissible evidence and closes off room for false claims. In Pakistan, video and audio recording of raids remains inconsistent.
3. Too much power sits with one person. Often, the same individual acts as the secret informer, the recovery witness, and the investigating officer. This concentration of roles in one person is inherently risky and makes it easy for the defence to argue bias or fabrication.
4. Laboratory testing standards fall short. A larger bench of the Supreme Court has previously flagged that narcotics testing protocols in Pakistan often fail to meet international standards, weakening the prosecution’s evidence.
5. The wrong people are prosecuted. The vast majority of narcotics prosecutions target couriers, drivers, and low-level facilitators, rarely the financiers or organisers behind the trade. When one courier is arrested, another simply takes their place. The people actually running the trade are seldom seen in court.
What Needs to Change?
A more effective approach to narcotics prosecution would include:
Compulsory video and audio recording at every stage of arrest and recovery
Independent laboratory testing that meets recognised international standards
A stronger chain of custody for seized substances
A shift in focus from couriers towards manufacturers, financiers, and organisers
Better screening at airports and international routes, not just the ones already well covered
Final Word
The CNSA 1997 is, on paper, a strong and detailed law. The problem lies in enforcement: investigations that follow an identical script, evidence that does not meet modern standards, and prosecutions that consistently target the most vulnerable people in the chain rather than those who profit most from it. Until the focus shifts towards the source of the trade, the numbers are unlikely to change.
About the Author
This article is based on insights from Barrister Muzamil Kaisrani, a Barrister-at-Law of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, London, and a registered Advocate with the Punjab Bar Council. He holds an LLM in Criminal Law and Family Law from the University of the West of England, Bristol, and an LLB from the University of London.
He leads Kaisrani Law Associates, based in Bahria Town, Lahore & Fane Road Lahore High Court offering legal services across civil, criminal, corporate, and family law. Alongside his practice, he has worked as a law lecturer teaching Contract Law, Criminal Law, and Constitutional Law, and has completed professional qualifications in International Commercial Arbitration and Arbitration Advocacy.
Fluent in English, Urdu, Punjabi, and Saraiki, he has advised clients across Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan, with a legal outlook shaped by both his UK education and his practice in Pakistan.
