منشیات مقدمات کے ٹرائلز میں پراسیکیوٹرز کیلئے لاہور ہائیکورٹ کی انتہائی سخت ہدایاتProsecutor remained silent and passive when prosecution witnesses gave concessional statements in favour of accused/appellant during cross-examination and Prosecutor neither bothered to get declare the prosecution witnesses hostile nor tried to impeach their (naeem)statements in terms of Articles 151 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. To curb this practice, this Court issued the following directions: - 1. All Law Officers must remain vigilant, active, and fully engaged during the recording of prosecution evidence, statement(s) of accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and defence evidence, especially(naeem03006762054) in narcotics cases where the margin of error could lead to the acquittal of drug traffickers. 2. Where any prosecution witness, including a police official, deviates from the facts or intentionally makes statements favorable to the accused, the Law Officer must immediately invoke the powers under Articles 150 and 151 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which permit asking questions to test the veracity, credibility, and conduct of the witness. 3. Law Officers must not allow any intentional or unintentional concessions granted by police witnesses to go unchallenged. They are required to take appropriate legal (naeem03006762054)steps to protect the prosecution's case. They should recommend departmental legal action against the police officials/witnesses who give concessional statements in favour of accused. 4. The Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore is also directed to personally look into this matter, identify the causes leading to weak prosecution, and take necessary steps to ensure accountability and improvement in performance. He shall issue comprehensive instructions to all Law Officers across Punjab to strictly follow the (naeem03006762054)legal procedure and exercise their authority under Articles 150 and 151 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, during trial proceedings. 5. Failure to comply with these directions must result in disciplinary action, as no negligence on part of the State's legal representatives should be tolerated where the administration of justice is compromised.No entry of recovered contraband was made in Register No. XIX of the Police Station despite the fact that it was a mandatory requirement under the Police Rules, 1934. Absence of this entry destroys proof of safe custody of allegedly recovered narcotic substance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan also (naeem03006762054)treats this discrepancy as fatal, resulting in acquittal of accused/appellant. Chain of safe custody and safe transmutation of allegedly recovered narcotic was not proved by the prosecution, in this way, the prosecution case becomes doubtful.Crl. Appeal.56371/23Shameer Khan Vs The State etc.Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem 2025 LHC 697019-11-2025 Signed on 01-12-2025