[P.O. 4 OF 1979]
When accused sentenced to 2 years' R.I under Article 4 of Prohibition Order 1979 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, the appeal did not lie to the Federal Shariat Court. Appeal returned to be filed to the High Court. PLJ 1994 FSC 74, Muhammad Abbas. Also see PLJ 1994 FSC 114, Tor Jan.
Muslim not to manufacture, import, transport, sell or possess liquor u/S. 17 of the Prohibition Order. Law to be amended by 11th July, 1988. 1988 SCMR 417. The Federation of Pakistan v. Nowsher Rustam Sidhwa.
Offence under Article 4 of Prohibition Order 4 of 1979 is triable by Magistrate First Class and not Sessions Judge. PLD 1988 Kar. 272 Wazir Khan.
Heroin and charas recovered from a car when accused was sitting on driver's seat. Held, car is not public place, hence the offence was not congnizable. 10 Kg. of heroin and 5 Kg of charas was recovered. According to unreported case of Mst. Zar Bano (Cr.P.No. 60-K of 1987) Supreme Court held that as the petitioner was found in possession of contraband articles in her house and not in a public place the offence is bailable according to Article 16 of Prohibition Order, 1979. Bail allowed. PLD 1988 Kar. 485 Malik Muhammad Saleem.
Opium recovered from Baithak of accused. Baithak is not a public place; hence the offence under Article 3/4 of Hadd Order is not cognizable and hence bailable. No witness from public associated in recovery. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (q) 581, Abdul Rashid. 
Drinking: Conditions for conviction under Article 8 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (P.O. IV of 1979) are: Prosecution must prove:
(1) Accused is an adult.
(2) Accused is Muslim.
(3) Accused has taken liquor by mouth.
(4) Accused has taken intoxicant intentionally without ikrah and iztirar.
If all these conditions are fulfilled only then the court can order the punishment of 80 stripes, but 
Proof for drinking depends on following: 
(1) The accused confess their guilt of drinking before a court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) In the absence of confession the court gets evidence of witnesses who are:
(a) At least TWO in number.
(b) Are Muslims.
(c) Are adult.
(d) About whom the court is satisfied as a result of secret mode of inquiry (Means, by way of Tazkiya-al-Shahood adopted by court to satisfy itself as to the credibility of a witness) that they are truthful persons;
(5) and who abstain from major sins (Kabir).
If any of the conditions mentioned above is not available to Court then imposition of Hadd punishment, that is whipping numbering 80 stripes under Article 8 of the order may not be sustainable. PLJ 1996 FSC 288. Muhammad Aslam.
Recovery of 54 liters of alcohol. When accused was alighting from a bus in town, thickly populated but no effort was made to secure independent mashirs. Samples sent to Chemical Examiner after 2 years. Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar.) 1685, Patasho.
Punishment under Article 3 & 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order cannot be awarded to an accused about the same incident as Article 3 includes offence under Article 4 of the Ordinance. PLJ 1996 FSC 281, Gul Muhammad.
Offence of drinking in a car which is not public place hence held to be non-cognizable. Trial held to be vitiated for material defect in investigation. PLJ 1987 FSC 28 Muhammad Yamin.
Person found drunk during police Gusht, no inference can be drawn that he had been drinking in public place. Offence under Article 11 to be cognizable only when committed at a public place. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Lah.) 127. Bheeloo.
Denatured rectified mentholated spirit falls within the definition of intoxicant mentioned in Article 2 (h) of Prohibition Order. PLJ 1991 SC 28. Mushtaq Ahmed.
Incharge of car presumed to be aware of its content Which were concealed in its body. Conviction u/S. 3 of Prohibition Ord. Upheld. 1988 SCMR 1899 Nadir Khan.
Heroin recovered from a house and not a public place, the offence is non-cognizable, The police could not arrest the petitioner nor could search the house without a search warrant. Accused admitted to bail. PLD 1988 Lah. 574, Muhammad Bashir.
Provisions of Sec. 165 (4) and 103 Cr.P.C not complied with when 1 kg. of heroin was recovered on the personal search of the appellant who was apprehended while riding a motorcycle. Only police witnesses and stock witnesses attested the recovery. Held, conviction of the appellant could not be maintained on the evidence of police witnesses. Police had prior notice of 1« hours prior to the nakabandi on the canal bank. PLJ 1995 PSC 54, Aziz Ahmed. 
Recovery of heroin on personal search at General Bus stand where independent public witnesses were available but were not even called upon to become recovery witnesses. Therefore, the mandatory provisions of Sec. 103 Cr.P.C were violated. 15 grams of heroin powder recovered. ASI was the complainant and the investigator and policemen were attesting witnesses. Recovery memo relied upon by police discarded. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Pesh) 1599. Ishtiaq Ahmed.
Prior information that the narcotics were being brought by the accused. Heroin 4552 grams and 1 kg. 10 grams of charas recovered from the plastic bag carried by the accused. Held, as provisions of section 165 (4) & 103 Cr.P.C. were not complied with appeal was allowed. PLJ 1995 FSC 72, Saif Ullah. Also see PLJ 1995 FSC 79, Pomi.
350 grams of heroin recovered. In spite of advance information, no effort was made to associate two witnesses from public for recovery, and also no arrangement was made for the lady constable to make a search of woman as required u/S. 52 Cr.P.C Held, case being doubtful appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 FSC 110, Shahida Parveen.
Conviction based on police witnesses, evidence only for offence under Prohibition Order, 1979 challenged, Supreme Court allowed leave and suspended the sentence in the meanwhile, 1990 SCMR 1310 Kakku.
Solitary evidence of ASI about recovery of heroin on the personal search of the accused, not to be acted upon without independent corroboration, when independent witnesses said to be present and the police had some grievance against the appellant. PLJ 1987 FSC 1-Badaruz Zaman.
Offence under Article 3 of Prohibition Order though punishable with 5 years' R.I. and does not fall u/S. 497 (1), Cr. P.C. prohibitory clause, yet the accused cannot claim bail as of right. Bails cancelled. PLD 1991 Lah. 433 State v. Muhammad Nazir etc.
Search and recovery of heroin from house. No respectable of locality joined as witness. No search warrant obtained. Investigation of case by complainant Inspector himself amounts to mockery of law. Bail allowed. 1990 P.Cr. LJ 26. Rao Muhammad Jalees.
Both private witnesses of recovery of heroin declared hostile. Report of Chemical Examiner not put to appellant. Appellants acquitted. PLJ 1989 FSC 1. Arshad Mahmood etc.
Only one gram of heroin sent to chemical examiner out of 150 grams seized, for report ten days after the recovery. Search and recovery witnesses not respectables of the locality or independent witnesses. Held, case of further inquiry. Bail allowed. 1990 P.Cr. LJ 1175. Jamshed Ali. 
13 grams of heroin recovered only 5 grams sent to Chemical Examiner. No proof that remaining 8 grams was also heroin. Unexplained delay of 14 days in sending 5 grams of heroin to chemical examiner. Held, case doubtful. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Kar) 926, Abdul Majeed.
Heroin samples not kept at police station for safe custody, No evidence to show that the samples sent to the Chemical Examiner by hand were found to be heroin. Defence evidence showing that the samples were received in the office of Chemical Examiner more than two months after seizure, again taken from bulk. According to sections 516-A and 523 Cr.P.C. bulk was under the control of the court and it could not be removed for getting another sample. Held. entire proceedings were unauthorised, illegal and invalid. Appeal accepted. PLJ 1995 FSC 27, Ahmed Nawaz.
Whether samples kept in safe custody, no such witness produced. It cannot therefore be said that what was recovered was an intoxicant as mentioned in the Order. Held, in view of inordinate delay in trial no useful purpose shall be served by remanding case. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1989 FSC 87. Muhammad Rafiq etc.
Fake decoy purchaser of heroin. Practice of prosecuting agency sending its own man as purchaser and then hooking up a person as seller of narcotics cannot be encouraged. Conviction and sentence under Article 3 set aside. PLJ 1989 FSC 39. Muhammad Iqbal.
No question put to accused u/S. 342, Cr.P.C. whether recovered substance was heroin according to Chemical Examiner's report. Held, recovery was of no legal effect. PLD 1989 Pesh. 47 Rothan Bacher Peter. PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 170.
150 grams of heroin found in possession in her house. Held, as the contraband was not recovered from a public place the offence was bailable by virtue of Article 16 of Prohibition Order, 1979 and also the petitioner being female with a suckling child, bail confirmed. 1989 SCMR 202. Mst. Zar Bano.
499 grams of heroin recovered on raid from a house without search warrants and also provisions of sec. 103 Cr.P.C were not complied with. Held, since I.O had committed an illegality in procedure in violation of Art. 22 and Sec. 103 Cr.P.C the whole exercise of recovery had become nullity in the eyes of law. PLJ 1995 FSC 60, Ashiq Hussain.
Recovery from house, 1015 grams of heroin made the offence non-cognizable. Police could not arrest the accused without obtaining search warrants from Magistrate/Collector/Probation Officer, neither his house could not be searched or raided. PLD 1988 Lah. 574 Muhammad Bashir.
Accused given a lift in a car from which heroin was recovered. Leave granted to consider whether benefit of doubt can be given to the unwary passenger. 1989 SCMR 491 Khair Gul.
Article 4 of Prohibition Hadd Order, held is not applicable when heroin was not owned by the accused who were only truck driver and its conductor, they were convicted u/S. 3 of the Order for transporting the intoxicant. 1991 SCMR 895 Sahibzada etc.
Was the accused conscious that she was carrying heroin, in a packet in the basket of clothes? No evidence that she was the owner or conscious carrier of heroin. Accused acquitted. PLJ 1991 FSC 58. Mst. Hussain Bibi.
Not raw opium according to chemical examiner, sentence reduced from 4 years to 2 years R.I. PLJ 1990 FSC 67. Muhammad Ramzan.
Recovered heroin not weighed, therefore it cannot be said whether it was less than 10 grams or over. This casts doubt on prosecution story. Sentence reduced to already undergone. PLJ 1991 FSC 11. Umar Hayat. 
Actual weight of heroin in the total material seized is material. Laboratory report besides weight showing several other details including tests, which show only presence of heroin, but not actual weight of heroin in total seized material. Quantum of punishment in case of heroin depends on actual weight of heroin and not on actual weight of material seized. As the actual weight of heroin in total weight of material seized had not been determined sentence was reduced from 4 years R.I. to 2 years R.I., sentence of 10 stripes was dropped and benefit u/S. 342 Cr.P.C. was allowed. PLJ 1996 FSC 224, Abid Hussain.
Recovery of 4 bags of heroin & challan u/S. 156 (1) (8) Customs Act 1969. It was doubtful whether the heroin powder was 100% pure or less. Benefit was given to the accused and sentence reduced to 5 years R.I. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Kar) 655, Mst. Rose Nyokabi Wacira.
Envelope in which heroin was recovered whether weighed or not along with the heroin powder not clear from evidence. Heroin recovered only 11 grams. In view of the doubt, sentence reduced to 2 years R.I. which is to be awarded for possessing 10 grams of heroin. 1995 SCMR 1809, Zafar Abbas = PLJ 1995 S.C 589.
Sentence for possessing 13 grams of heroin and 100 grams of opium, held sentence of 5 years is quite hard as for possession of 10 grams of heroin maximum sentence is two years. Sentence reduced to 2 years PLJ 1991 FSC 128 Sikandar.
Two kilograms of heroin recovered sentence of 4 years not enhanced as the accused was a female with eight daughters to look after. PLD 1991 FSC 1, Zeb-ul-Haram.
Sentence of life imprisonment reduced when 60 kilograms heroin recovered from the possession of the appellant as he was neither proved to be the owner, smuggler or carrier of heroin. 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000 with 10 stripes awarded by trial court maintained. 1990 SCMR 602 Muhammad Rafiq.
100 Kg heroin recovered, sentence enhanced to life imprisonment from 10 years R.I. with 15 stripes and fine of Rs. 1 lac. PLJ 1991 FSC 130 Noorul Haq etc.
Confiscation of cash recovered from the accused is not justified under Article 14 of the Prohibition Order IV of 1979, specially when separate sentence of fine has been awarded, and there is no proof that the cash was on account of the sale of the narcotics. Order set aside. 1992 SCMR 108. Muhammad Ayub.
Explanation given by accused plausible; that is, that the heroin in question was owned by passengers who ran away from the spot. Case set up by accused has certainly created doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Appeal allowed. 1992 SCMR 1134, Wazir Muhammad.
Separate punishments u/Ss. 3 and 4 of Prohibition Order IV of 1979 cannot be awarded as under Article 3 transportation and sale include possession which is punishable u/A. 4 of the Order. 1992 SCMR 108. Muhammad Ayub; PLJ 1993 FSC 56, Iqbal ; PLJ 1993 S.C. 348. Nur Hussain.
Accused found transporting narcotics cannot be convicted under Articles 3 and 4 simultaneously as importing, exporting, transporting and manufacturing, bottling or selling any intoxicant include its possession also. Conviction under Article 4 set aside. PLJ 1994 S.C. 83. Umar Saeed = PLD 1994 SC 255.
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 extended to Tribal Areas as well, as it is a Constitutional Order made by the President and the Chief Martial Law Administrator and is said to extend to whole of Pakistan. 1993 SCMR 1523, State, State v. Sajjad Hussain etc.
Drinking in public place (a brick kiln); appellants being first offenders and having not created trouble in the area were released on probation under probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Lah.) 58, Qaim etc.
Car conficated for using it to transport heroin, returned to the accused without knowledge or consent of the car owner. PLJ 1996 FSC 129, Muhammad Akbar etc.
One Kg heroin & one Kg opium recovered from car-Car is not a public place. Therefore, the offence was not cognizable. Held, requirement of Article 22 of Prohibition Order not complied with. Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lah) 204, Muhammad Akram.
100 grams of heroin recovered from car. The car is a place but not a public place, hence the offence is not cognizable unless committed in a public place. No search of private vehicle could be conducted without a search warrant. Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Pesh) 253, Mst. Iqbal Bibi.
Heroin recovered from car. Driver of the car was released. The owner of the car convicted did not appeal. The accused appellant could not be convicted only because he raised a false plea. 1992 SCMR 1451, Nurul Haq.
Only one gram of heroin sent to Chemical Examiner out of 11 packets containing heroin allegedly recovered, held, accused could be punished for possessing only one gram of heroin. Sentence of 2 years R.I reduced to about one month imprisonment already undergone. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 363. Muhammad Tufail.
Sentence of 135 grams of heroin recovered reduced from 5 years to 2 years R.I. and 4 stripes instead of 15 stripes in view of the appellant's presumed age of 60 years as his wife who appeared in court appeared to be 55 years old for offence under Art. 4 of the Prohibition Order. 1994 SCMR 667, Muhammad Ashraf alias Chaudhri.
Heroin samples sent to Chemical Examiner after 1 month and 20 days of recovery. No explanation given for this delay and case property not produced in Court. Held, case doubtful. Accused acquitted. PLJ 1992 Cr. C. (Kar.) 404, Fida Hussain.
525 grams of charas recovered. Bail allowed for offences u/Ss. 3/4 of Prohibition Ordinance and Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance Sec. 9 for the reason that in the absence of Expert evidence it was not clear that the substance of Expert evidence it was not clear that the substance recovered was in fact charas (DB) PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1064, Muhammad Boota.
Carries of heroin, truck driver and conductor not proved to be owners of heroin awarded sentence u/A. 3 of Prohibition Order only. Conviction u/A. 4 set aside. 1993 SCMR 1608, Nur Hussain.
34 Packets of heroin recovered from a taxi. Taxi driver accused was only a driver. He might be plying the taxi without any knowledge of the heroin in the taxi. Samples sent after 3 days of recovery. Therefore, tampering could not be ruled out. Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. 1996 SCMR 1541. Asghar Ali.
80 Kg heroin recovered from the secret place in the ceiling to the truck. The truck driver and another person sitting with him in the truck were tried and sentenced to life-imprisonment. As no evidence was available to show that the accused were either the owners of the truck or the recovered heroin, Held, mere presence of the accused in the truck was not enough for their conviction in the absence of reliable evidence about the transportation of the heroin by them. The I.O. had not bothered to find out the owner of the truck or heroin. Accused Acquitted. 1997 SCMR 543, Zahoor Ahmed Awan.
One gram heroin and 26 grams charas recovered after fake purchaser sent to the accused. Recovery doubtful. Appellant acquitted. PLJ 1994 FSC 106, Samual Masih.
Police witness as fake purchaser of charas and opium. No witness from public. Charas 1800 grams and opium 250 grams recovered. Complainant police officer initiated the case in retaliation. Acquitted. PLJ 1994 FSC 101, Ghulam Ali.
"Opium" and "Raw opium" are two different substances. Recovery of raw opium carries heavier sentence. PLJ 1992 FSC 501, Muhammad Yaqub.
Raw opium. Investigating Officer to get opinion of Chemical Examiner whether the substance is opium or raw opium. PLJ 1992 FSC 109. Muhammad Ayub.
Not "Raw" opium sentence reduced from 7 years to 2 years as it was not raw opium and sentence of stripes was also set aside as it was only an alternative punishment. PLD 1992 FSC 497, Noor Hashim
NOTE: word "RAW" in Article 4 of prohibition order was omitted under Ordinance XXV of 1993. 
For recovery of heroin accused was searched near a bazar but no person from public was associated to attest recovery of heroin. A police constable used as a fake purchaser, although a respectable person yet an independent and disinterested person could have been taken to inspire confidence. Recovery held, not free from doubt and non-association of public witnesses was deliberate on the part of the police and even report of Chemical Examiner would not improve prosecution case. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. 1988 P.Cr.LJ 869 (FSC), Muhammad Nadeem.
Conviction based on Police witnesses evidence only for offence under Prohibition Order, 1979 challenged. Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and suspended sentence in the meanwhile. 1990 SCMR 1310, Kakku.
1000 grams of heroin recovered from personal possession of the accused, although no independent witness from locality was joined and only policemen were witnesses of recovery, conviction was upheld. Sentence reduced from 7 years to 5 years, as the accused was not a notorious narcotics peddler. PLJ 1997 FSC 69, Abdul Malik.
Recovery of heroin and police witnesses. No doubt in absence of mala fides or motive for false charge reliance can be placed on he statements of official witnesses but when the recovery of the substance by itself is the main offence the statements of such police witnesses needed to be properly appraised and minutely scrutinized and the benefit of doubt if any arising from the reading of their statements should be extended to the accused. 1997 SCMR 1494, Jamil Shah.
Only one out of two respectables of the locality associated in the search proceedings. only 35 grams of heroin recovered entailing maximum punishment of 7 years. Accused a female, bail allowed. 1997 SCMR 947, Mst. Fahmida.
Investigating officer raided the accused's premises for recovery of narcotics but did not associate two respectables of the locality in the search proceedings. Held, provisions of sec. 103 Cr. P.C flagrantly violated and his action was illegal. Held, whole proceedings of search and recovery of heroin from the house had become most doubtful. Accused acquitted. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 165, Mst. Aasia.
Recovery of narcotics in the city on a raid being made and not in a jungle or highway efforts should be made to associate a public witness. 1992 SCMR 1502 Gulab.
No body from general public associated with recovery, although there were several passengers in the bus when 20 grams of heroin was recovered from the side pocket of the accused. The accused was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. PLJ 1993 FSC 46, Walayat Khan.
50 grams of heroin recovered from petitioner but no respectable of locality joined in recovery proceedings, and no reason given for not joining independent persons as mushirs, though available. Heroin not weighed at the spot. Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr. C. (Kar.) 255, Malik Javed.
Confiscation of truck in which narcotics were carried is competent u/S. 516-A Cr.P.C. read with Articles 14 & 15 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. PLJ 1992 FSC 489. Amir Aman Ullah Khan.
Sentence of car driver reduced to 10 years R.I. by Supreme Court, when he had been sentenced to life imprisonment being the carrier of 7 Kgs of heroin. 1993 SCMR 149, Sherzada.
Bail refused by the Federal Shariat Court for offences u/Articles 3 & 4 of Prohibition Order, 1979 as the case was hit by prohibitory clause of sec. 397 (1) Cr.P.C for the recovery of heroin weighing 2500 grams. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 928, Muhammad Yousaf Bengali.
While delivering heroin to fake purchaser accused was apprehended by raiding party. No person from public associated in the raiding party. Recovery of 25 grams of heroin effected in presence of police and excise officials only. Bail allowed in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties. 1988 P.Cr.LJ 1432, Hamad Shahzad.
Only two grams of heroin sent to Chemical Examiner while 848 grams had been destroyed before the trial. Held, the appellant could be convicted for only two grams of heroin. Sentence reduced to already undergone. PLJ 1995 FSC 58, Bashir Ahmed alias Billa.
15 grams of heroin recovered but parcels sent to chemical examiner after 4« years. The inordinate delay remained unexplained, which created serious doubts. Appellant acquitted. PLJ 1996 FSC 88, Mst. Zahida.
Only 5 grams of heroin sent to chemical examiner out of 29 grams of heroin recovered from the accused. Accused no longer required by police. Even positive result of Chemical Examiner would not bring the case within prohibitory clause of sec. 497 Cr.P.C. Bail allowed. 1991 P.Cr.LJ Note 36, Khalid Riaz.
Heroin samples not sent to Chemical Examiner for report. Held, prosecution failed to prove that the recovered article was heroin. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1995 FSC 64, Muhammad Kleem.
Samples of charges kept for 7 days and then sent to Chemical Examiner. Delay not explained. Result and report of Chemical Examiner would become unreliable on account of unexplained delay in sending material to expert. Held, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (DB) PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1310, Javed Akhtar.
Delay in sending heroin samples to laboratory without any explanation for the inordinate delay adversely reflects on prosecution case. Heroin recovered on 20.9.1992 but sent to laboratory on 11.10.1992, i.e. after 21 days. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1997 S.C. 1314, Jamil Shah.
Heroin sent to laboratory 21 days after its recovery from  accused without any explanation for the delay and the material contradictions in prosecution evidence ignored. Accused acquitted. 1997 SCMR 1497, Jamil Shah.
30 grams heroin recovered but samples sent to Chemical Examiner after 23 days of recovery. Chemical Examiner not examined in Court Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Pesh) 202, Muhammad Hanif.
Recovered charas not sent to Chemical Examiner for one year. Bail allowed for offences u/Ss. 6 & 9 of Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance, 1995 as the offence is not punishable with more than 7 years imprisonment. (DB) PLJ 1996 Cr-C (Kar) 1449. Muhammad Hussain.
No evidence where the bulk of heroin samples were kept after recovery from the appellant. No reasons given why the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner after 38 days of recovery and whether the samples were kept in safe custody. In this case 5« Kg of heroin was recovered. Appeal accepted on benefit of doubt. PLJ 1994 FSC 86. Wasal Khan and another.
Heroin sample parcel sent to chemical examiner after 4 months of its recovery with no explanation for this delay. Only 11 grams of heroin recovered. This created doubt about recovery. Appeal accepted. PLJ 1995 FSC 26, Ghulam Mustafa.
Heroin recovered not produced in Court, since there was no property available on record, matter had become doubtful, benefit of which given to the appellant, and appeal accepted. PLJ 1997 FSC 64, Mst. Nargis.
30 Puris of heroin recovered, but only two puris (Small Packets) for chemical examination. Net weight of the sample sent to Chemical Examiner was 0.730 grams. Held, where powder in 30 puries was not mixed and sample sent for Chemical Examination out of that mixture. Appellant could only be sentenced for the powder which was found to be heroin. Accused/appellant's sentence reduced to one already undergone. PLJ 1996 FSC 78. Abid Ali.
30 grams of heroin powder recovered from accused, though punishment for the offence was life imprisonment yet case of the accused, held, was not one in which bail might be refused as quantity of recovered powder was small one. Bail allowed. 1986 MLD 2220 (1) (Kar.) Jehan Zeb.
40 Kgs of heroin & 5 Kgs of charas recovered from a private car while accused was sitting on the driver's seat, Vehicle not a public place as defined in Article 2 (1) of the Prohibition Order, as recovery was not from a public place, the offence was not cognizable. The police could not investigate a non-cognizable case without compliance with Sec. 155 (2) Cr.P.C. In the case of Muhammad Yamin v. State, 1987 P.Cr. LJ 2239 it was held by a Division Bench of the Federal Shariat Court that vehicle was not a public place Cr.P. No 60-K of 1987, Mst. Zar Bano v. The State, an unreported case of Supreme Court of Pakistan was referred in which it was held that as house was not a public place, the offence under Article 16 of the Prohibition Order was bailable. Bail was granted to the applicant. PLD 1988 Karachi 485, Malik Muhammad Saleem.
850 grams of heroin recovered from accused and in custody for over 3 « months. Petitioner not a previous convict nor required any more for investigation. Bail allowed. 1985 P.Cr. LJ 2779, Babar Islam.
35 grams of heroin recovered from accused. No public witness joined in the raid or recovery proceedings. Accused not previous convict. bail allowed. 1989 P.Cr. LJ 521, Muhammad Aslam.
Charas weighing 3425 grams recovered from house, on raid without a warrant as required under Article 22, held as charas was not recovered from a public place the offence was not cognizable. Bail allowed. PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 310 Abdul Haleem.
One kilogram of heroin recovered from the shop of the petitioner. No search warrant was obtained in terms of Article 22 of the Prohibition Order, 1979. Continuous period of detention over one year had passed but trial not concluded. Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lah) 187. Abdul Khaliq.
650 grams of charas & 2 Kgs, 625 grams of opium recovered from shop; SHO did not obtain mandatory search warrant under Article 22 of the Prohibition Order. Thus, search is in violation of the said Order. Search and recovery not in accordance with sec. 103 Cr.P.C. Held, search and recovery was devoid of legal authority, illegal and invalid. Sentence of two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000 set aside. PLJ Cr.C (Pesh) 189, Zamin Khan.
1,105 grams of heroin recovered from house of the accused, held, the offence was not cognizable. Police could not arrest the accused. The house could not be raided without obtaining search warrant from the Collector, Prohibition Officer or Magistrate. Bail allowed. PLD 1988 Lah. 574 Muhammad Bashir alias Doba.
Recovery of one bottle of liquor. Appellate Court reduced the sentence to one year's R.I and fine to Rs. 500. High Court in appeal reduced the sentence to already undergone, about 4 months and fine of Rs. 100, in default to 15 days S.I u/S. 4 of Prohibition Order. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 1076, Waheed Iqbal.
Appeal to High Court for offence under Article 4 of Prohibition Order, 1979, when sentence is 2 years or less. Under Art. 27 of the Prohibition Order appeal to Federal Shariat Court lies only when the sentence exceeds 2 years. Appeal returned for filing before the High Court. PLJ 1994 FSC 61. Muhammad Farooq.
Whether separate trials can be held for offence under Art, 3/4 of Prohibition Order and u/S. 156(1)(8) of Customs Act, 1969 for the recovery of 15 Kgs of Charas for same offence and same facts. Held, provisions of Arts. 3 & 4 of Prohibition Order, 1979 are separate and distinct offences. Provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution and section 403 Cr.P.C are not applicable. 1988 P.Cr. LJ 881 and PLD 1990 FSC 62, referred. (DB) PLJ 1994 (Kar.) 228, Jonathan New house.
Heroin and opium not produced in court. Section 516-A proviso Cr.P.C. not complied with. 50 grams of heroin and 100 grams of opium recovered. Because of non-compliance with proviso to sec. 516-A Cr.P.C. only 5 grams of heroin and 5 grams of opium which was sent to the chemical examiner believed to be recovered from appellant. Sentence reduced and stripes dropped in view of Act VII of 1996. PLJ 1996 FSC 274, Abdul Majeed.
Non-production of seized material in court: Federal Court did not agree with the trial court about the quantity of seized material of 112 maunds & 12 kilos of charas when it had not been produced in the court. 5 kg of charas was sent to the Chemical Examiner. Only 5 Kg was held to have been recovered from the accused. PLJ 1996 FSC 295, Islam Gul.
848 grams of heroin destroyed prior to trial apparently u/S. 516-A Cr.P.C. but no samples kept so that such samples be produced in court during trial for establishing total quantity and quantity destroyed. No such samples produced in Court. The accused was convicted for possessing 2 grams of heroin. PLJ 1996 FSC 5. Bashir Ahmed alias Billa.
Bhang not included in "Narcotics Substances but included in word intoxicant as defined in prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, 64 Kg of Bhang recovered. Bail allowed. (DB) PLD 1998 Kar. 187, Hussanddin.
A.S.I Police has no authority to take cognizance of case and register it u/S. 19 & 21 of the Prohibition Ordinance. Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar.) 66. Ghulam Ali.
1200 grams of opium recovered: Although public witnesses were available but none was made to join the recovery proceedings. Appellant acquitted for non-compliance with sec. 103 Cr.P.C and infirmities and contradictions in evidence. PLJ 1996 FSC 21. Qaloo. 
5250 grams of opium recovered from house on raid. No search warrant obtained as required by Article 22 of the Prohibition Order. Two persons from locality not associated with recovery as required u/S. 103 Cr.P.C Held in absence of the search warrant of the premises the search became illegal. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 FSC 72. Shankar.
One Kg. Heroin recovered, bail allowed on statutory ground of delay in trial. When there is no material on record to show that the petitioner is a previous convict or desperate or hardened criminal, bail should be allowed. 1997 SCMR 361, Jaggat Ram v. State referred. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. 666, Mubarak Ali etc.
40 Packets of Bhung recovered, bail allowed as offence fell under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order which was punishable with two years imprisonment. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Kar.) 378, Khuda Bakhsh. 
Recovery of heroin and charas from house without associating two respectables of locality, violated provision of sec. 103 Cr.P.C. This illegality rendered the entire search proceeding invalid. Appeal accepted. PLJ 1995 FSC 14, Arshad Ali etc.
Although provisions of Sec. 103 Cr.P.C. are mandatory, yet non-compliance in certain cases does not damage the prosecution case. In the instant case 10 Kg of charas and 5 kg of opium was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Recovery believed as such a large quantity of narcotics could not be planted by the police. Recovery of 110 grams of heroin from the person of the accused was also believed by the court as there was no time to associate respectables of the locality in the search. PLJ 1994 S.C 377, Muhammad Khan.
4 Kilograms heroin recovered, only two witnesses, i.e. I.O. and one witness from public produced. Public witness admittedly a stock witness whose statement was recorded u/S. 161 Cr.P.C after 11 days of recovery and that witness swore an affidavit that he did not know anything about the recovery. Held, it was unsafe to convict the appellant on the solitary evidence of I.O. without independent corroboration. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 FSC 96, Bashir Ahmed. etc.
5 Kgs heroin, ex-police officer a recovery witness, respectables of the locality not joined as recovery witnesses. Accused alleged to be holding a basket containing 5 bags of heroin. Respectables of the locality testifying to the innocence of the appellant. Held, prosecution case is not free from doubt. Appellant acquitted. 1994 SCMR 1612, Abdullah Jan.
1000 grams heroin recovered, bail allowed for offence u/S. 3/4 of Prohibition Order when the detention of the petitioner exceeded 2 years and he was not a previous convict. PLJ 1997 Cr.C (Lah) 57, Muhammad Shafiq. 
855 grams of heroin recovered from a shopper bag in the hand of the accused. Complainant as well as the I.O. not produced at the trial. Only one police constable produced as recovery witness; held conviction and sentences are liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 FSC 12, Muhammad Razaq. PLJ 1996 FSC 10, Muhammad Riaz.
350 grams of heroin recovered on spy information by police but no effort was made to comply with the provisions of sec. 103 Cr.P.C and no explanation was given by police as to why TWO witnesses from public were not associated with recovery proceedings. One public witness totally denied recovery from the accused's person and his house. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 FSC 49, Badshah Khan.
50 grams of heroin recovered. Recovery made at 10 a.m. in thickly-populated area. No effort was made to join any public person in recovery proceedings. Bail allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lah) 571, Ghulam Abbas 
29 grams of heroin recovered on personal search of person from the shirt pocket of the accused. Held, as provisions of section 103 read with 165 (4) Cr.P.C. were not complied with although public witnesses who were available yet they were not made witnesses of recovery, benefit of doubt given and accused acquitted. PLJ 1995 FSC 175, Ghulam Muhammad.
24 grams of heroin recovered from house search and the person of the accused. No public witness was examined at the trial, although a public witness accompanied the excise inspector in house search. The version given by the head-constable of police contradicted the prosecution case as contained in the FIR. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 FSC 41, Ahmed Shah.
20 grams of heroin recovered. Public witness could not be joined in recovery as there was no time to join persons of locality and no public witness was present nearby. Conviction maintained. 1992 SCMR 1475 relied upon. PLJ FSC 44, Muhammad Altaf. 
Public witness though available not joined in recovery of heroin (2,100 grams). Held, police witnesses were competent witnesses as recovery was not made from search of premises. PLJ 1995 FSC 7, Muhammad Mumtaz.
Heroin weighing 3.325 Kg recovered but provisions of Sec. 103 Cr.P.C not complied with. The appellant's luggage was searched at the airport. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1995 Cr.C (Kar.) 195, Muhammad Amin.
3 kilograms of heroin recovered from house. No witness from public associated in Recovery. As recovery was not from public place the offence was not cognizable. Bail allowed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C (Lah) 165, Mahboob Ali.
20 kilograms of heroin was allegedly recovered. Two respectables of locality were not joined in the house search, although the raid was conducted on secret information. The police had ample time to join two respectables of the locality in the house search. Appeal allowed in case u/S. 3 & 4 of Prohibition Order, 1997 SCMR 617, Muhammad Mansha.
Opium recovered from Baithak of the accused. Baithak is not a public place, hence the offence under Article 3/4 of Hadd Order is not cognizable and hence bailable. No witness from public associated in recovery. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Q) 581 Abdul Rashid.
392 Drug addicts released on bail as they were in jail hospital and were found in possession of small quantities of heroin. Released on personal bond of Rs. 100 each. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 819, Younis Mayo etc.