Lahore High Court Acquits Czech Model Tereza in Narcotics Case: A Study of Procedural Lapses and Legal Safeguards

In a landmark ruling, the Lahore High Court (LHC) has acquitted Tereza Hlůšková, a Czech model who was earlier sentenced to eight and a half years in prison by a sessions court on charges of narcotics smuggling. The judgment not only ended a prolonged legal battle but also highlighted the crucial importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in criminal trials.

Background of the Case

In March 2019, a sessions court convicted Tereza Hlůšková for allegedly attempting to smuggle heroin out of Pakistan. She was arrested at Lahore airport when narcotics were reportedly recovered from her luggage. Following her conviction, Tereza filed an appeal before the Lahore High Court.

Her counsel, Advocate Saif-ul-Malook, argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized narcotics. He submitted that the alleged heroin was never proven to have been safely transferred to the laboratory for chemical examination, raising the possibility of tampering or substitution of samples.

Key Legal Issues Considered

1. Chain of Custody of Evidence

The LHC noted that the investigation record did not clarify who transported the narcotics sample to the laboratory. The complainant officer (PW-5) after filing the complaint returned to duty without handing over the seized narcotics. Similarly, PW-2, the Superintendent, could not produce the register showing receipt of the narcotics parcels.

The investigating officer also failed to state whether he delivered the samples to the chemical examiner. Such omissions raised serious doubts about whether the recovered narcotics and the tested samples were indeed the same.

2. Deficiencies in Recovery Memo and Forensic Report

• The recovery memo lacked the official monogram/seal, which is critical to authenticate the seized property.

• The chemical analysis report revealed discrepancies in the weight of the recovered heroin: while the original seizure was recorded as 5 grams, the laboratory report mentioned 5.83 grams, raising suspicion of possible mishandling or replacement.

3. Failure to Produce Key Witnesses

The suitcase allegedly containing heroin was searched by Naheed Akhtar, lady constable, who was never produced before the court as a witness. Her absence weakened the prosecution’s claim about how the narcotics were recovered.

4. Absence of Supporting Evidence

In cases involving international travelers, CCTV footage is often considered essential to establish recovery and custody of narcotics. The prosecution failed to present any such footage, leaving room for doubt and possible false implication.

Reliance on Precedents

The court relied upon:

• Faizan Ali v. The State (2019 SCMR 1649)

• Akhtar Iqbal v. The State (2015 SCMR 291)

In both cases, the Supreme Court of Pakistan stressed that lapses in maintaining the chain of custody of narcotics and failure to affix seals on recovery memos are fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The High Court’s Verdict

The LHC, in Criminal Appeal No. 19382 of 2019 (Tereza Hlůšková v. The State), held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The contradictions in evidence, non-production of key witnesses, and absence of proper chain of custody rendered the conviction unsafe.

Accordingly, the court acquitted Tereza Hlůšková, setting aside the sessions court judgment.

Broader Legal Implications

This case is significant for several reasons:

1. Reinforcement of Due Process: It reaffirms that in criminal law, especially in narcotics cases, the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution. Any gap in the chain of custody benefits the accused.

2. International Attention: Given that the accused was a foreign national, the case drew global media interest, putting Pakistan’s judicial process under scrutiny.

3. Guidance for Law Enforcement: The ruling underscores the necessity for law enforcement agencies to meticulously document every step of narcotics recovery, storage, and testing to avoid collapse of prosecutions.

Conclusion

The acquittal of Tereza Hlůšková is not merely the story of a model freed from prison; it is a case study in how procedural lapses and investigative negligence can overturn a conviction. It highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding fair trial rights and ensuring that convictions are based on unimpeachable evidence, not on suspicion or incomplete investigation.

As Pakistan continues its struggle against narcotics trafficking, this case serves as a stark reminder: justice requires precision, transparency, and strict adherence to legal safeguards.