SHC calls for strict regulations for courier companies to curb drugs smuggling

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has called for strict regulations for the courier companies observing that if the courier companies are not regulated with strong and enforceable mechanisms, the legal system will continue to see false implications, real offenders will exploit loopholes and the Anti-Narcotics Force’s (ANF) operations will be compromised.

A single bench of the high court headed by Justice Khalid Hussain Shahani observed that all courier companies were legally obligated to obtain and record valid CNIC/passport copy of the sender, photograph of the sender, biometric verification (linked with Nadra, where possible) and contact details, including the traceable phone number.

The high court observed that for real-time CCTV surveillance, the companies must install CCTV cameras for retention of CCTV footage at all dispatch counters, with a minimum 90-day retention period for footage.

The SHC observed that the videos should cover parcel handover, face of sender and sealing of package. The high court observed that the courier branches should maintain monthly dispatch logs for the ANF and police review while tge courier companies must use digitally integrated systems (like banking KYC) that record exact time and location of booking, person on the counter, GPS data and IP address if the booking was made online.

The observation came in a bail application of a man who was arrested by the ANF in a drug smuggling case. According to the prosecution, an ANF officer received information from the manager of a private courier company about a suspicious parcel received at the courier company's Clifton branch destined for New Zealand.

The parcel in question was found booked under the name of Arif Gul, the applicant, and addressed to one Marley Morgan, care of Wall Board & Insulation Services, Christchurch, New Zealand.

The prosecution alleged that the consignment ostensibly contained various sports goods; however, upon inspection, five out of eighteen hockey balls were discovered to be hollowed out concealing a substance later identified as methamphetamine, also known as ice, weighing about 400 grammes.

A counsel for the applicant submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case with mala fide intent and for ulterior motives. He submitted that the recovery of narcotics was not made from the applicant’s exclusive possession or control, nor had any direct evidence been brought on record linking the applicant with the consignment in question.

The counsel submitted that the prosecution had relied upon an undertaking on March 3, 2023 in support of the present offence, which allegedly occurred on April 14, 2021 without conducting any forensic verification of the applicant’s signatures through a handwriting expert, thereby raising serious doubts as to its evidentiary value.

He said that the courier company’s manager bypassed the standard protocol by reporting directly to the ANF instead of contacting the local police station or dialing emergency helpline ‘15’, cast further doubt upon the credibility and propriety of the initial complaint.

He said the absence of CCTV footage or photographic evidence to show the applicant's presence at the courier office, coupled with the non-association of any independent witnesses, such as the stamp vendor or courier staff, at the time of recovery proceedings severely weakened the prosecution’s case.

An ANF special prosecutor opposed the application for bail, asserting that the applicant was the individual who had booked the parcel containing methamphetamine.

He submitted that a private witness had identified the applicant as the person who dispatched the consignment. The prosecutor further emphasised that there existed no evidence for mala fide or personal animosity on the part of the ANF officials suggesting false implication and requested the high court to dismiss the bail application.

The SHC observed that it appeared that the ANF action was initiated solely on the basis of information provided by a private individual who was the manager of the courier company. The bench observed that despite being the source of the initial intelligence and playing a pivotal role in triggering the investigation, he had neither been cited as a prosecution witness nor examined during the course of the inquiry.

The SHC observed that no plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution for this omission while the manager did not report the matter through the local police station or the emergency helpline '15', as was the standard protocol, but instead directly contacted a specialised federal agency.

The bench observed that this deviation raised concerns regarding the integrity of the information chain and the procedural propriety of the recovery operation conducted by the ANF. The SHC observed that although the courier company was a reputed and internationally-affiliated logistics company, the prosecution had not produced CCTV footage to establish the identity of the individual who booked the parcel.

The high court observed that no timestamp, booking reference, or video evidence had been provided to confirm the time, location and manner in which the parcel was handed over and even no documentary material had been brought on record to demonstrate whether any standard screening or sender verification process was undertaken.

The SHC observed that the absence of basic compliance with standard operational protocols prima facie raised legitimate doubts over the veracity of the prosecution’s version, needing further enquiry during the trial.

The bench observed that the cumulative effect of the infirmities, including the non-citation of the courier company manager and staff as witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, absence of technical and electronic evidence, deviation from standard investigative protocols and procedural irregularities in sampling led to the inescapable conclusion that the case against the applicant called for further inquiry.

The SHC granted the applicant bail against a surety of Rs300,000 and directed the trial court to evaluate the evidence independently and uninfluenced by the observation of the high court at the time of final adjudication.