Narcotics Seized by Customs: Who Investigates, and Which Court Tries the Case?

Narcotics are caught at airports, dry ports, seaports and border stations by Pakistan Customs every week. A parcel of heroin booked for export, “ice” hidden in luggage, or charas concealed in a container is at the same time smuggling under the Customs Act, 1969 and an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA). Two questions follow in almost every such case:

1. Can the customs officer who seized the narcotics also inquire into and investigate the offence?
2. Before which court is the challan to be submitted: the Special Judge (Customs) or the Special Court (CNS)?

The short answer: yes, an Officer of Customs can lawfully inquire and investigate, but the challan goes to the Special Court established under the CNSA, and to no other court. A trial of a narcotics offence before the Special Judge (Customs) is without jurisdiction. The reasons are set out below.

Two statutes, one act of smuggling

Under the Customs Act, 1969, “smuggling” as defined in section 2(s) covers bringing into or taking out of Pakistan goods whose import or export is prohibited, and narcotics are expressly included. The offence is punishable under section 156(1), and offences under that Act are ordinarily tried by a Special Judge appointed under section 185.

Under the CNSA, sections 6, 7 and 8 prohibit possession, import, export and trafficking of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances, and section 9 provides the punishment. Section 45 gives the Special Court established under that Act exclusive jurisdiction to try such offences.

The same consignment therefore attracts both laws. Parliament resolved the overlap itself, in section 72 of the CNSA.

Section 72 CNSA: the provision that decides both questions

Section 72 first provides that every prohibition and restriction on the import, export and transshipment of narcotics under the CNSA shall be deemed to be a prohibition and restriction under the Customs Act, 1969. This is what brings the customs machinery of detention, search and seizure into play. Two provisos then follow.

Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), or any other law for the time being in force, all offences relating to narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances shall be tried under the provisions of this Act:

Provided further that where the Officers of Customs apprehends a person involved in any offence relating to narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances shall be empowered to carry out inquiry and investigation in the same manner as an officer authorised under this Act.

The first proviso answers the question of forum. The second answers the question of investigation.

Question 1: Can the customs officer inquire and investigate?

Yes. The second proviso to section 72 is a direct statutory grant. Once an Officer of Customs apprehends a person in a narcotics matter, he may carry out inquiry and investigation “in the same manner as an officer authorised under this Act”. He does not need to hand the accused over to the Anti-Narcotics Force or the police, although he may do so.

In practical terms this means the customs officer may:

• register the FIR at the Customs police station or enforcement unit concerned, under sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the CNSA, usually read with the relevant provisions of the Customs Act;
• exercise the powers of entry, search, seizure and arrest in sections 21, 22 and 23 of the CNSA;
• prepare the recovery memo, draw and seal samples, and send them to the Government Analyst;
• obtain remand, record statements and collect documentary and digital evidence;
• submit the final report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Two further provisions support this. Section 21 of the CNSA speaks of an officer “not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police or equivalent” authorised by the Federal or a Provincial Government. Section 28 allows the Federal Government to invest any officer of a law enforcement agency with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for investigation under the Act.

A word on terminology. An investigating officer does not “take cognizance”. He registers the case and investigates. Cognizance is taken by the court, on the report under section 173 CrPC. The real question is therefore which court can take cognizance, and that is the second question.

Question 2: Which court receives the challan?

The Special Court (CNS). Four provisions point the same way.

• Section 72, first proviso, CNSA: notwithstanding the Customs Act, all narcotics offences “shall be tried under the provisions of this Act”.
• Section 45 CNSA: the Special Court established under the Act has exclusive jurisdiction to try offences cognizable under it.
• Section 76 CNSA: the Act has effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law.
• Section 185-B(a), Customs Act, 1969: as amended by the Finance Act, 2014, it gives the Special Judge exclusive jurisdiction over offences under the Customs Act “except the offences relating to narcotics and narcotic substances which shall be tried by the Special Courts established under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997”.

So both statutes now say the same thing. The Customs Act itself sends narcotics cases away from its own Special Judge.

Section 27 of the CNSA completes the picture at the earliest stage: a person arrested and articles seized under the Act are to be forwarded without delay to the officer in charge of the nearest police station and to “the Special Court having jurisdiction”. Remand, too, is therefore a matter for the Special Court (CNS).

What the courts have held

The State v. Nasim Amin Butt (2001 SCMR 1083)

This is the leading Supreme Court authority. The accused had been proceeded against before the Special Judge under the Customs Act for smuggling narcotics. The Supreme Court held that, after the CNSA, such an offence is to be tried under that Act by the Special Court created under it, and the proceedings before the Special Judge (Customs) were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Hussain Abdullah Salum v. The State (PLD 2001 Karachi 283)

A Full Bench of the Sindh High Court took the same view: after sections 7, 9 and 72 of the CNSA, smuggling of narcotics is no longer a separate offence to be tried under the Customs Act, and it can be tried only by the Special Court under the CNSA.

The State/ANF v. Agha Mehmood ul Hassan Haravi (Sindh High Court, 19 October 2022)

In Special Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2021, Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, J. reviewed both authorities and section 72, and noted that section 185-B of the Customs Act was amended by the Finance Act, 2014 “to clarify” that smuggling of narcotics is triable exclusively by the Special Court under the CNSA, leaving the Special Judge (Customs) to try smuggling of goods other than narcotics. The Court applied the same reasoning to forfeiture of assets said to be derived from narcotics smuggling, and quashed proceedings taken before the Special Judge under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 as coram non judice.

Dawood-ur-Rehman v. The State (2022 PTD 1611, Sindh High Court)

As summarised in a research memorandum of the Balochistan High Court’s research centre, this case concerned ketamine seized in the course of smuggling. The Court held that where smuggling is committed in respect of a narcotic or psychotropic substance, the scheme of the CNSA comes into play, the investigation by customs is legitimised by the Act, and the outcome of that investigation is to be placed before a court established under the CNSA.

The combined effect

• Seizure: by Customs, under its ordinary powers and under the CNSA.
• Inquiry and investigation: by the Officer of Customs, under the second proviso to section 72, or by the ANF if the case is transferred.
• FIR: under the CNSA, even if Customs Act provisions are also mentioned.
• Remand, cognizance and trial: Special Court (CNS) only.
• Appeal: to the High Court under section 48 of the CNSA.
• Special Judge (Customs): no jurisdiction over the narcotics offence.

Mixed seizures: narcotics found with other smuggled goods

Sometimes narcotics are recovered together with other contraband, such as foreign currency, gold or non-duty-paid goods. The narcotics offence still goes to the Special Court (CNS). Section 45 of the CNSA, as amended in 2022, allows the Special Court to try another offence at the same trial when so authorised by the Federal Government and where the accused may be charged jointly under the Code. Where that is not available, the non-narcotics smuggling remains with the Special Judge (Customs), and customs adjudication of the other goods continues under the Customs Act.

No second trial for the same narcotics

An accused cannot be punished twice for the same offence. Article 13(a) of the Constitution, section 403 CrPC and section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 all protect against this. In narcotics smuggling the law avoids the problem at the source, because only one trial is permitted, under the CNSA.

The reverse situation needs care. If a narcotics case was wrongly tried by the Special Judge (Customs), that trial is without jurisdiction. On the reasoning in Nasim Amin Butt, such proceedings are liable to be set aside and do not, by themselves, bar a lawful trial before the Special Court.

Points for the defence

• Wrong forum: if the challan has been sent to, or remand obtained from, the Special Judge (Customs), object at once. Orders passed by a court without jurisdiction are open to challenge.
• Who investigated: check that the investigating officer is an “Officer of Customs” and of the rank the CNSA requires. The superior courts have generally treated a defect in the rank of the seizing officer under section 21 as curable and not fatal, so this point works best together with real prejudice.
• Complainant as investigator: in customs cases the seizing officer often investigates as well. This is not illegal in itself, but it calls for closer scrutiny of the evidence.
• Safe custody and chain of transmission: the prosecution must prove where the case property and samples were kept, who carried them to the Government Analyst and when. Gaps here are the most common ground of acquittal.
• The Analyst’s report: it should set out the tests applied and the protocols followed.
• Conscious possession: in parcel, courier and container cases, knowledge of the contents has to be proved, not presumed from a name on a booking slip.
• Bail: section 51 of the CNSA restricts bail in the more serious cases, so the merits have to be shown from the record itself.

A note on the provincial narcotics laws

Punjab, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have enacted their own narcotics statutes for offences within the province. Import into and export from Pakistan are federal subjects handled at customs frontiers, and the authorities discussed above all concern the federal CNSA. In any customs seizure after a provincial law has come into force, counsel should check the saving and overriding clauses of that law before settling the forum.

Conclusion

When Customs seizes smuggled narcotics, the law gives a clear and consistent answer. The Officer of Customs may inquire and investigate in the same manner as an officer authorised under the CNSA. The case is registered and investigated as a narcotics offence. The challan is submitted to the Special Court established under the CNSA, which alone can take cognizance and try the accused. The Special Judge (Customs) has no jurisdiction over the narcotics offence, as section 72 of the CNSA, section 185-B of the Customs Act and the Supreme Court in Nasim Amin Butt all confirm.

For narcotics cases specifically, see CNSA cases before the Lahore High Court: bail and appeals.

Need a lawyer for this? See our service page: Bail & Criminal Lawyer in Lahore. Related: Post-arrest bail under Section 497 CrPC.

Muhammad Shafique Baloch, Advocate High Court
Office No. 3, Basement, Miccop Centre, 1 Mozang Road, near AG Office Chowk / Lahore High Court, Lahore
WhatsApp / Phone: 0321-4960782

This article provides general legal information as of October 2026 and is not legal advice for any particular case. Statutes are amended from time to time; consult an advocate before taking any step.