Prosecution case was that 7200 grams opium in six packets was recovered from the vehicle driven by accused---Record showed that the reports submitted by Testing Laboratory was legally laconic---Deposition of complainant reflected that he had not handed over the sample parcels to the Moharrar in the Police Station for keeping the same in safe custody rather retained the same with him till its transmission in the office of Testing Laboratory---In the testimony of Moharrar, he acknowledged the receiving of sample parcels along with the case property from the complainant and its entrustment to Constable for its transmission to the office of Testing Laboratory for analysis---Both the complainant and Moharrar alleged that they had sent the sample parcels to the office of Testing Laboratory but the reports of laboratory totally spoke otherwise that the samples were received in the said office "By Hand"---Reports did not bear name of any person, who submitted the sample parcels in the said office---Safe custody and as well as transmission of sample parcels from the place of occurrence to the Police Station and office of Testing Laboratory was missing, in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.PCrLJ 2024 Lahore 385
S. 9---Possession of narcotic---Testimonies of the police personnel---Such testimonies are required to be treated in the same manner as the testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration from independent witnesses, their testimonies cannot be relied upon---Presumption that a person acts honestly applies, as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. --- (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 ('the Rules of 2001')---Possession of narcotic---Rules of 2001 are stricto sensu directory and not mandatory in any manner---It does not spell as to whether in case of any lapse, they would automatically become instrumental to discard the whole prosecution case. --- Prosecution witnesses of recovery remained firm on each and every material particular of the prosecution story and their testimony could not be shaken---Safe chain of custody of the recovered narcotics was not compromised at all---Appeal against conviction was dismissed. 2023 SCMR 1669 (Zain Ali vs State)
S. 9(c)--- Possession of narcotic --- Safe custody and transmission of sample parcels to the office of Chemical Examiner not established---In cases under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, it is duty of the prosecution to establish each and every step from the stage of recovery, making of sample parcels, safe custody of sample parcels and safe transmission of the sample parcels to the concerned laboratory---Such chain has to be established by the prosecution and if any link is missing in such like offences the benefit must be extended to the accused---In a case containing the said defect on the part of the prosecution it cannot be held with any degree of certainty that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against an accused person beyond any reasonable doubt. 2023 SCMR 139 JAVED IQBAL vs State
---Police constable, who allegedly took the sample parcels to the concerned laboratory was also not produced---In such eventuality, prosecution failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the sample parcels to the concerned quarter and the prosecution could not give any plausible explanation for not producing said important witnesses---Said defect in the prosecution case went into the root of the case creating serious doubt regarding the narcotics and its recovery---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed, and while extending benefit of doubt to them, the accused persons were acquitted of the charge. 2022 SCMR 1006 MUHAMMAD SHOAIB vs State
Ss. 2(t)(iii) & 9(c)--- Possession and transportation of 1650 kilograms of poppy straw----Perusal of section 2(t)(iii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, showed that 'poast' in the mixture form would only be considered a narcotics substance within the meaning of the Act if the same contained 0.2 percent of morphine---However, the report of the Chemical Examiner reveals no such percentage - Report of the Chemical Examiner, left no doubt that the recovered poast from the possession of the accused was in grinded/mixed shape, therefore, the report of the Chemical Examiner ought to have mentioned the percentage of morphine in the whole mixture---Record also did not show as to whether from the 1650 kilograms of poast, which was in the shape of whole poppy plants, how much quantity was the sack/pouch/doda as it is only the sack/pouch/doda which contained narcotic substance---Therefore, in absence of such report, it was difficult to determine as to whether the case against the accused fell within the purview of section 9(a), 9(b) or 9(c) of the Act---In circumstances, conviction of accused was maintained, however his sentence of imprisonment for life was reduced to that already undergone---Appeal was partly allowed. 2022 SCMR 1375 ZAFAR IQBAL vs State
Forensic report regarding narcotics was strictly in accordance with the principles laid down for such purpose by the Supreme Court---Accused in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. alleged false implication and mala fide but record of the case would show that he could not explain and establish the same---No reason or factum of malice was found on record for implicating the accused falsely or with any mala fide---Recovery of narcotics was proved by a police official and the said recovery was also testified by another police official---Non-production of other recovery witness/police official had no bearing on the merits of the case---Appeal was dismissed, and conviction and sentence awarded to accused under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was maintained. 2022 SCMR 1784 NAVEED AKHTAR vs State
---Safe transmission of samples to office of Chemical Examiner not established---Heinousness of the charge and huge quantity of the alleged contraband, notwithstanding, the prosecution was under a bounden responsibility to drive home the charge by proving each limb of its case that essentially included production of the witness, tasked with the responsibility of transmitting the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner---Failure of the prosecution in such regard cast away the entire case---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed; the impugned judgment was set aside; and accused was acquitted of the charge. 2022 SCMR 819 ABDUL GHAFOOR vs The STATE
In the cases of narcotic substances, recovery memo is a basic document, which should be prepared by the Seizing Officer, at the time of the recovered articles, containing a list thereof, in presence of two or more respectable witnesses and memo has to be signed by such witnesses---Main object of preparing the recovery memo at the spot and with signatures of the witnesses is to ensure that the recovery is effected in presence of the marginal witnesses, honestly and fairly, so as to exclude the possibility of false implication and fabrication---Once the recovery memo is prepared, the next step for the prosecution is to produce the same before the Trial Court, to prove the recovery of the material and preparation of the memo through the scribe and the marginal witnesses. 2022 SCMR 864 ZAFAR KHAN vs : State
Safe custody and safe transmission of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Significance---Representative samples of the alleged drug must be kept in safe custody and undergo safe transmission from the stage of recovery till its submission to the office of the Government analyst---Non-establishing the said facts would cast doubt and would impair and vitiate the conclusions and reliability of the report of the Government analyst, thus rendering it incapable of sustaining conviction2022 SCMR 1641 QAISER vs State
---No reason or factum of malice was found on record for implicating the accused falsely or with any mala fide---Recovery of narcotics was proved by a police official and the said recovery was also testified by another police official---Non-production of other recovery witness/police official had no bearing on the merits of the case---Appeal was dismissed, and conviction and sentence awarded to accused under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was maintained. 2022 SCMR 1784 NAVEED AKHTAR vs State
Safe custody of sample parcels was not established by the prosecution---Police constable, who allegedly took the sample parcels to the concerned laboratory was also not produced---In such eventuality, prosecution failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the sample parcels to the concerned quarter and the prosecution could not give any plausible explanation for not producing said important witnesses---Said defect in the prosecution case went into the root of the case creating serious doubt regarding the narcotics and its recovery---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed, and while extending benefit of doubt to them, the accused persons were acquitted of the charge. 2022 SCMR 1006 MUHAMMAD SHOAIB vs State
---Neither the safe custody nor the safe transmission of the sealed sample parcels to the concerned laboratory was established by the prosecution because neither the Moharrar nor the Constable concerned who deposited the said parcels in the concerned laboratory was produced---Sample parcels were received in the forensic laboratory three days after the recovery of narcotics and prosecution was silent as to where these sample parcels remained during this period, meaning thereby that the element of tampering was quite apparent in the present case---Appeal was allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt. 2022 SCMR 1422 ISHAQ vs State
S. 9(c)---Narcotic cases---Testimony of police officials, reliance upon---Scope---Testimony of police officials is as good as any other private witness unless it is proved that they have animus against the accused---Reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases has become judicially recognized fact and there is no impediment to consider statement of official witnesses, as no legal bar or restriction has been imposed in such regard---Police officials are as good witnesses and can be relied upon, if their testimonies remain un-shattered during cross-examination. 2022 SCMR 905 FAISAL SHAHZAD vs State
S. 9---Possession of narcotics---Testimony of police officials---Such testimony was as good as any other private witness unless it was proved that the police officials had animus against the accused. 2022 SCMR 317 (Ajab Khan vs State)
Absence of any apparent reason to falsely implicate the accused for possession of 15.6 kg of narcotic, negated the hypothesis of fake imposition---Methodology adopted by accused of transporting drugs while travelling with wife and children was not unusual in drug trafficking cases---Presence of a lady constable who frisked and arrested the wife/co-accused went a long way to support the prosecution case---Inspector and lady constable (official witnesses) furnished details of the arrest and recovery; their statements were in a comfortable and confident unison on all the salient aspects of the raid as well as details collateral therewith---Prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2021 SCMR 198
Non-association of witnesses from the public---Supreme Court observed that absence of a witness from the public, despite possible availability was not a new phenomenon; it was reminiscent of a long drawn apathy depicting public reluctance to come forward in assistance of law, due to exasperating legal procedures and lack of witness protection---In such circumstances, evidence of official witnesses was the only available option to combat the menace of drug trafficking with the assistance of functionaries of the State; their evidence, if found confidence inspiring, may implicitly be relied upon without hesitation, as their status as witnesses was second to none. 2021 SCMR 198
R. 6---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Report of Government Analyst---protocol s/procedure---Scope---Substantial/sufficient compliance with R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 ('Rule 6')---Plea on behalf of accused that forensic report in the present case did not mention the details of protocol s used, as such the nature of contraband was never established---Held, that tests carried out by the analyst were vividly mentioned in his report, under the heading "Test Performed on Received Item(s) of Evidence" followed by the heading "Results and Conclusions"---Said details in the forensic report substantially/sufficiently qualified to meet the statutory requirements under R. 6 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Conviction of accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was maintained---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. 2020 SCMR 460 SHAZIA BIBI vs State
Any test conducted without a protocol lost its reliability and evidentiary value---To serve the purposes of the Control of narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Control of narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, the report of the Government Analyst must contain three elements, i.e the tests applied; the protocols applied to carry out these tests; and, the result of the test(s)---Report of the Government Analyst which did not specify the protocols of the tests applied did not meet the requirements of the law---Such a Report could not be relied upon for the conviction of an accused. [Context of 'protocols' as explained in the judgment reported as (Ikramullah's case 2015 SCMR 1002, Imam Bakhsh's case 2018 SCMR 2039 and Khair-ul-Bashar's case 2019 SCMR 930) further clarified]. PLD 2020 SC 57
Held, that the accused was driving the relevant vehicle when it was intercepted---Report received from the Chemical Examiner had declared that the recovered substance was charas---Prosecution witnesses deposing about the alleged recovery, were public servants who had no ostensible reason to falsely implicate the accused in a case of present nature---Said witnesses had made consistent statements fully incriminating the accused in the alleged offence---Nothing had been brought on record which could possibly be used to doubt the veracity of the said witnesses---Guilt of accused had been established beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence recorded against the accused and upheld by the courts below was maintained. PLD 2020 SC 132
R. 6---Control of narcot ic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcot ics--- Report of Government Analyst---Protocols/procedure---Confirmatory forensic conclusions to establish narcot ic character of a substance must be supported by the protocol/procedure mandated by R. 6 of the Control of narcot ic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Non-compliance of R. 6 would render the report of the Government Analyst inconclusive, suspicious and untrustworthy and would not meet the evidentiary assumption attached to such report 2020 SCMR 196
narcot ics were not recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle---Appellant, being in possession of valid documents showing his undisputed ownership, was entitled to the custody of the vehicle---Appeal was allowed. 2020 MLD QUETTA 59
R.6---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 36(1)---Narcotics---Government analyst report, preparation of---Mandatory requirements---Report of the Government Analyst, prepared in consequence of R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, must provide for, firstly, tests and analysis of the alleged drug; secondly, the results of the test(s) carried out, and, thirdly the test protocol s applied to carry out these tests---Said three elements formed the fundamental and the core elements of a valid Report prepared by a Government Analyst---Non-compliance of R. 6 and absence of any of the said mandatory elements/requirements frustrated the purpose and object of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ('the Act'), thereby diminishing the reliability and evidentiary value of the Report---Under S. 36 of the Act, the report of the Government Analyst, whilst being admissible in evidence without formal proof, was rebuttable and could be questioned by the accused, inter alia, on the ground of non-compliance of the information required under R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Judgment reported as State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) purposively interpreted the Act and (rightly) found R. 6 to be a mandatory provision regarding information to be reflected in the Report of the Analysts. 2019 SCMR 930 KHAIR-UL-BASHAR vs State
Ss. 9(c) & 36---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, R. 6---Possession of narcotic drug---Delay in registration of FIR---Safe custody and transmission---Proof---Report of Government Analyst---Non-mentioning of protocol s of test applied---Effect---Prosecution case against accused was that he tried to smuggle heroin from international airport---Police, on secret information, apprehended accused and recovered huge quantity of heroin---Held; recovery was made at 12:45 a.m. (night) whereas complaint was prepared at 9:30 a.m. (next morning); such delay raised questions qua veracity of the case and signaled towards consultation, concoction, inducement and procurement on the part of prosecution---Forty five cartons were checked and only footballs were found therein, on further checking of two cartons, heroin was found therein---Prosecution witnesses could not separately point out before the court about the cartons from which heroin was allegedly recovered and could not prove safe custody and transmission of heroin to the Government Analyst---Prosecution witness deposed before court that he handed over recovered parcel to other prosecution witness who deposed on the same lines---Complainant deposed that he transmitted the recovered parcel to the Government Analyst---Report of Government Analyst revealed that he received parcels/samples from Incharge Anti-Narcotic Force by hand---Government Analyst had not mentioned the protocol s of tests conducted by him which made the report inconclusive and rendered the same invalid and not reliable for the purpose of conviction---Appeal was allowed in circumstances and conviction and sentence recorded against accused was set aside. 2019 YLR Lah 925 MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MUGHAL vs State
R. 3---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9---Possession of narcotic---Narcotic Testing Laboratories---Qualification of Government Analyst---Supreme Court directed that the Federal Government and the respective Provincial Governments shall ensure that the Government analysts in the Narcotics Testing Laboratories were qualified as per R. 3 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001('the Rules'); that the tests and their protocol s were common across the country and as per International guidelines; that the officials of the National and Provincial Narcotics Testing Laboratories shall follow the Rules in the best manner possible so that efficient and meaningful chemical analysis could be achieved, and that in case of failure, disciplinary action shall be taken against the officials, in accordance with law. 2018 SCMR 2039 The STATE vs IMAM BAKHSH
sentencing policy and bail stage
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498---Recovery of narcotic drugs--- bail , grant of--- Categorizing of sentence---Neither categorization of sentencing nor any guess work or speculative exercise could be undertaken by court at bail stage to enlarge an accused on bail in such crimes--- Such categorization amounts to pre-empting the mind of Trial Court, controlling its powers in the matter of sentencing accused and determining quantum of sentence upon his conviction 2015 SCMR 1077 SOCHA GUL vs State
S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Reappraisal of evidence---Accused was caught red-handed and charas (narcotic) weighing 5 kilograms contained in 5 packets was recovered from his exclusive possession---Some quantity of narcotics was extracted from each packet and five separate sealed parcels for chemical analysis were prepared and forwarded to the office of the Forensic Science Agency---Report of the Chemical Examiner was positive---Recovery witnesses remained consistent on each and every material point and no material contradiction in their statements was pointed out---Said witnesses had no animosity or ill will towards the accused, hence they had no motive to falsely implicate the accused---Statements of said witnesses were further corroborated by the report of the Chemical Examiner---Although there was a minor delay in sending the sample parcels to the Forensic Science Agency but the rules to that effect were directory and not mandatory---Nothing on record established that the said parcels were ever tampered with rather the evidence led by the prosecution established that the parcels received by the said agency, remained intact---Both the courts below had correctly observed that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the accused---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. 2017 SCMR 1874
Ss. 9(c), 2(t), 2(w) & 2(x)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 , R. 6---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---'Crushed poppy heads' recovered from accused persons---Chemical Examiner's report not clearly and legibly mentioning percentages of Meconnic Acid, Sulphuric Acid, Porphyroxin, Alkaloids, Morphine and Codeine in the sample---Gross negligence on part of Chemical Examiner [Minority view]---Accused persons applying for re-examination of sample by another Laboratory but subsequently abandoning such plea---Presumption that accused persons apprehended result of re-examination of sample adverse to them---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances. 2016 SCMR 621
S. 497(5)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic drugs---Application for cancellation of post arrest bail---Applicant was alien to the proceedings and allowing him to move an application for cancellation of bail would open a floodgate permitting every private individual to settle his personal scores with an accused booked in FIR bearing no direct nexus with that person---Allowing a private individual to move for cancellation of bail allowed to an accused wherein such person was neither a complainant, a witness nor directly aggrieved in any manner would be in complete negation of the mandate of Chapter XXXVIII of Cr.P.C. and it would certainly disturb the fiber of law and frustrate the object and scheme of prosecution---Without touching upon the merits of the case, High Court held that application was not maintainable on account of lack of locus standi which was dismissed accordingly. 2018 YLR 124 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that 1200-grams heroine was recovered from the accused during the course of investigation in another case---Prosecution produced complainant and recovery witness in order to prove the charge against the accused---Statements of said witnesses were coherent and confidence inspiring---Said witnesses had corroborated each other on all material points including date, time and place of occurrence, the quantity of recovered narcotics and the manner in which recovery was effected---Version of the said witnesses was vouched by the report of Forensic Science Agency---Circumstances established that accused was involved in the offence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. 2018 YLR 9 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss. 9(c) & 48---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Possession, import or export, trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotics---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Case property/recovered substances, safe custody of---Principles---Nothing was available on record to establish as to in whose presence the case property had been de-sealed and second sample (as directed by the court) obtained for sending the same to Chemical Examiner---Mere deposition of the prosecution witnesses was not sufficient to prove the safe custody of the case property---Prosecution had not produced the police official before the Trial Court, through whom said second sample of substance had been sent to the Chemical Examiner, which falsified the prosecution case---In absence of any concrete evidence that the recovered substance had been kept in safe custody or that samples had been taken from the recovered substance and transmitted to the office of Chemical Examiner without the same being tampered with or replaced during the transit, the prosecution case could not be said to have been proved---Report of Chemical Examiner did not carry any weight especially in absence of any evidence with regard to the safe custody of recovered substance and safe transmission of the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner---Trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of the doubt---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. 2017 P.Cr.L.J 349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss. 9, 36 & 48---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Report of Chemical Examiner---Application for fresh analysis of the contraband--- Dismissal of application---Appellant/accused, was found in possession of three cans, each containing twenty seven litres of Acetic Anhydrine, a contraband designated as psychotropic substance under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Trial was in progress, and evidence of recovery witnesses, had already been recorded; the Report of Chemical Examiner was before the court---Appellant, being dissatisfied with the report of Chemical Examiner, moved application for fresh analysis of the contraband for the purpose of determination of its chemical composition---Contention of appellant was that it would be in the interest of justice that the seized contraband be sent to any laboratory other than Punjab Forensic Science Agency---Validity---Prosecution of offences was a State attribute; State functionaries and institutions, were tasked to carry out the job; there was presumption of genuineness to such pursuits---Said powers could not be delegated to private enterprises chosen by a person confronting indictment---Any flaw or defect in the Forensic Report, could not be pressed into service for fresh analysis---Accused was not required to establish his innocence through such methodologies---Forensic analysis of the contraband, in the case, was undertaken soon after registration of the case; it was intriguing as to how the appellant became suspicious about the psychotropic character of the stuff attributed to him---Appellant having denied the charge, no onus was cast upon him within the contemplation of Art. 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to discharge any responsibility which could necessitate the proposed exercise---Appeal was dismissed . 2017 PCrLJ 1652 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss. 9(c), 47 & 48---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435 & 439---Possession of narcotic drugs---Criminal revision under Ss. 435/439, Cr.P.C.---Maintainability---Complainant assailed the vires of judgment passed by Special Court which on confessional statement of accused had convicted him under S. 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Section 47 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had made Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 applicable to trial and appeals before a Special Court---Section 48 of the Act contemplated an appeal to High Court against an order passed by a Special Court comprising Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge and in the present case, the Court was that of Sessions Judge thus Ss. 435 & 439, Cr.P.C. would be inconsistent to Ss. 47 & 48 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Order passed under the Act could not be assailed by invoking revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Criminal revision was dismissed being not maintainable. 2017 PCrLJ 1193 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
2014 PCrLJ 1649 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Preamble & S. 9---Intent and object of promulgation of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was to control the production, processing and trafficking of narcotics etc., and having been promulgated for that special purpose, its operative provisions should not be crushed on mere technicalities---In achieving the object of that Act, court should be vibrant and minor irregularities or discrepancies, must be overlooked.
2012 YLR 805 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESs. 9(c), 25 & 29---Smuggling of narcotics--- Appreciation ofevidence---Statements of prosecution witnesses had no material discrepancies---minor discrepancies and innocent admissions during cross-examination were natural due to a lapse of more than three years--- ---
Provisions of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of the said Act being directory in nature, their non-compliance would not make the trial bad in the eyes of law---Charas and opium had been recovered from the car in possession of accused, technicalities of any nature could be overlooked in the larger interest of the country, if the case otherwise stood proved--- Appeals were dis-missed in circumstances.
2010 S C M R 27 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
--Approach ofCourt should be dynamic and pragmatic in approaching true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions while deciding such type ofcases---Court should consider entire material as a whole and if it was convinced that the case was proved then conviction should be recorded notwithstanding procedural defects………Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court---Leave to appeal was refused.
Mirza Shah's case 1992 SCMR 1475; Naseer Ahmed's case 2004 SCMR 1361; Riaz Ahmad's case 2004 SCMR 988; Muhammad Shah's case PLD 1984 SC 278; Said Shah's case PLD 1987 SC 288; Nadir Khan's case 1988 SCMR 1899; Rab Nawaz's case PLD 1994 SC 858; Ikram Hussain's case 2005 SCMR 1487; Munawar Hussain's case 1993 SCMR 785; Muhammad Arshad case 2007 SCMR 1378; Mst. Taj Bibi's case 2007 SCMR 1591 and Wajid Khan's case 2007 SCMR 1435 rel.
Section 21 violation
2009 SCMR 291 SUPREME-COURT
Accused was apprehended by police during normal patrol duty and no raid was carried out by the police personnel, and as such S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was not applicable---Even otherwise, policy party could not be expected to go in search of the officer entitled to arrest the accused being an A.S.-I., on hisapprehension---At the most this was an irregularity which was curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.---
Second ground weighing with High Court that the investigation was not carried out by an official authorized to do so, was also devoid of substance, as no prejudice had been caused to accused by such investigation and it was merely an irregularity curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.---Bail allowed to accused was cancelled in circumstances.
2009 SCMR 291 SUPREME-COURT
Ss. 21 & 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.537---Investigation by an unauthorized officer is anirregularity---Investigation carried out in the case by an officer not authorized to do so is merely an irregularity, which is curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.
2009 PLD 39 SUPREME-COURT
S. 9(c)---Certain minor lapses in investigation do not affect the validity of the trial. 2012 MLD 770 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss. 9(c), 21 & 2(t), (v), (w)---Appreciation of evidence---Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was fully competent, in given circumstances, to conduct raid and seize the narcotics---Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory in nature, any violation thereof was not fatal to prosecution case…………………….Poppy straw and poppy heads included all parts of the poppy plant---"Phakki" (post) recovered from the accused was a narcotic substance as defined in Ss.2(t), 2(v) & 2(w) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Law did not require sending the whole narcotic substance to Chemical Examiner, only a small quantity thereof would be enough to prove that the entire recovered material was contraband…………………………….-Police Officials were as good witnesses as public witnesses, until and unless defence would establish some specific enmity or malice against them---Non-association of any witness from public, therefore, was not fatal to prosecution case---
Report of Chemical Examiner was positive---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances.
2012 YLR 794
Ss. 9(c), 20 & 21---Appreciation of evidence---Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had categorically been excluded by S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Police Officials having no ill-will or personal grudge against the accused were competent witnesses---Police witnesses had furnished straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence---Hugequantity of "charas" could not be planted on accused by Police Officials from their own resources---Non-compliance of Ss.20 and 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in the peculiar circumstances of the case would not make the conviction of accused illegal---Narcotic was recovered not from a residential house but from a narcoticden---Spy information having been received after office hours, search warrants could not be obtained---Investigationof the case by CIA being an irregularity could not vitiate the whole trial entitling the accused to acquittal---Readerof Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of witnesses under his directions and notindependently---Tampering of the parcels of recovered narcotic having not been agitated, mere delay in sending the same for chemical analysis was not favourable to accused---Samples were drawn from 264 rods of "charas", each rod weighing ten grams, as such accused was found in possession of 2640 grams of "charas" and he had been rightly convicted and sentenced---
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2012 YLR 805 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
State Ss. 20, 21 & 22---Search and investigation---Provisions of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory in nature, non-compliance thereof would not make the trial or conviction bad in the eyes of law.
Samples 72 hours
2011 SCMR 624 SUPREME-COURT
Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 4 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal, refusal of---Destruction of case property under the orders of Sessions Court did not suffer from any illegality, as samples of narcotics had already been taken and duly exhibited at the trial---
Apprehension of accused and recovery of contraband "Charas" from the by carried by him, had been satisfactorily proved by the unaminous testimony of prosecution witnesses on all material aspects of the case qua place, time of arrest and recovery---No enmity, ill will or grudge was alleged against the prosecution witnesses by the accused for his false implication---Eleven kilograms of "Charas" could not be thrust upon the accused without any serious enmity---Rules 4 and 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, being directory and not mandatory , could not control the substantive provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and frustrate its purpose---Failure to follow the said rules would not render the search, seizure and arrest under the parent Act a nullity and would not make the entire case doubtful, except the consequences provided in the rules---Belated dispatch of incriminating articles for expert opinion could not be fatal in the absence of any objection regarding the same having been tampered with or manipulated---Impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, legal orfactual---Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly.
2015 PCrLJ 30 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SIND
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account was submitted by three official s, and such account of the evidence had gone unshaken, despite said witnesses were subjected to the lengthy cross-examination---Entries appeared to have been produced to substantiate the movement of said official s, and report of chemical analyst had also been produced, which had established that the parcel sent to him was charas---Truck driven by one of accused persons, having been found to be loaded with contraband material, possession thereof could not be said that same was not to be with accused persons, who had been controlling the Truck---Not necessary that the driver should also be the owner of the vehicle, or that only owner of the vehicle was liable, and the driver could not be saddled with liability---Driver who was in actual possession of the vehicle and the material, was responsible; the owner of the truck could also be guilty in some cases, but not necessarily in every case---official s were also good witnesses like others, and their evidence could not be brushed aside merely for the reason of their being official s; they could be disbelieved, if they were shown to be inimical, and interested---No animosity was alleged against the witnesses ---In the absence of such motive, there was no reason to discard the testimony of the official s---Evidence having gone unshaken, mere delay in sending the sample could hardly be of any importance---Case against accused persons, having been proved, they were rightly convicted and sentenced.
2010 SCMR 27 SUPREME-COURT
Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29(d)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---official witnesses ---Recovery from vehicle---
Proof of---Shifting of onus to prove---Chars weighing 39 kilograms and opium weighing 3 kilograms was recovered from inside four doors of the car which was being driven by accused---Trial Court convicted the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, which conviction and sentence was maintained by High Court---Validity---Mere fact that prosecution witnesses belonged to Anti-Narcotics Force, by itself could not be considered valid reason to discard their statements---Chars and opium recovered from four doors of the car which was being driven by accused coupled with the fact that only accused was present in the car, therefore, courts below were justified to give finding against accused regarding his guilt---In case of transportation or possession of narcotics, technicalities of procedural nature or otherwise should be overlooked in the larger interest of country, if the case stood otherwise proved---Approach of Court should be dynamic and pragmatic in approaching true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions while deciding such type of cases---Court should consider entire material as a whole and if it was convinced that the case was proved then conviction should be recorded notwithstanding procedural defects---Chemical Examiner's reports regarding Chars and opium were sufficient to prove that substance recovered from accused was Chars which could be used to cause intoxication---Prosecution discharged its initial onus while proving that substance was recovered from him whereas accused failed to discharge his burden in terms of S.29 (d) of Control of Narcotic Substances. Act,1997---Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court---Leave to appeal was refused.
2010 SCMR 1962 SUPREME-COURT
Ss. 9(c) & 29---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Re- appraisal of evidence---Recovery of narcotics---official witnesses , evidence of---Charas weighing 20 kilograms was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Trial Court---
Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that no private witness was associated in recovery proceedings---Validity---Accused was apprehended at the spot from a vehicle on whose search 20 kilogram Charas was found for which F.I.R. was got lodged with promptitude and samples from recovered material were sent to Chemical Expert without any loss of time which were found "Charts" as a result of chemical examination---No enmity was alleged against prosecution witnesses and there was no possibility for false implication without having any ulterior motive which was never alleged---Defence version was rightly discarded which was denial simplciter and did not appeal to logic and reason---Reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases had become judicially recognized fact and there was no way out but to consider statement of official witness, as no legal bar or restriction had been imposed in such regard---Police official s were as good witnesses and could be relied upon, if their testimony remained un-shattered during cross examination---Provisions of S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had provided exclusion of S.103, Cr.P.C. during recovery proceedings---TrialCourt had appreciated the entire evidence and conclusion arrived at was affirmed by High Court which judgment was well based and did not warrant interference---Leave to appeal was refused.
2008 SCMR 1254 SUPREME-COURT
S. 9(c)---Reappraisal of evidence---Recovery of 11 kilograms of opium---Complainant as Investigating Officer---
No public witness---During search, 11 kilograms of opium was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for imprisonment for life, which was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that complainant himself was Investigating Officer and all prosecution witnesses were official s of Anti-Narcotic Force---Validity---Police Officer was not prohibited under the law to be a complainant, if he was a witness of an offence---Such officer could also be an Investigating Officer, so long as it did not prejudice accused person---Though Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses were employees of Anti- Narcotic Force, they had no animosity or rancor against accused to plant such a huge quantity of narcotic material upon him---Defence did not produce any such evidence to establish animosity qua prosecution witnesses ---All prosecution witnesses deposed in line to support prosecution case---Witness had passed the test of lengthy cross-examination but defence failed to extract any material contradiction fatal to prosecutioncase---Prosecution had been successful to bring home the guilt of accused to the hilt by placing ocular account, recovery of narcotic material and Chemical Examiner report---Accused failed to point out any error of law in the judgment and the same was unexceptionable---Appeal was dismissed.
2014 PCrLJ 1649 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5---Possessing and trafficking ofnarcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Police Inspector who appeared as witness, almost had reiterated the story narrated by him in the complaint---Said witness gave minute details of the narcotics which were recovered from possession of accused---Witness was fully corroborated by other Police Official who was also a member of raidingparty---Contention of counsel for accused persons regarding violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., had no force, because S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of the said provision of Cr.P.C., from the cases of narcotics---Place of recovery was not a public place, but was a house; there was no possibility of any private person to witness the proceedings specially during the night when occurrence took place---Directions given in Rr.4 & 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, were directory in nature and not mandatory at all, coupled with the fact that the same did not override the main statute---Seventy-seven kilograms charas and13-1/2 kilograms opium were recovered from possession/at the behest of accused persons; and accused persons never contended that such a huge quantity of narcotics was not recovered from them---Samples, though were sent to the laboratory after 15 days of recovery of narcotics, but the defence could not prove that the samples were tampered with during that period---Delay in submission of samples to the laboratory, was not fatal to the prosecution case to initiate the conviction---Positive reports of the laboratory supported the prosecution case-- -Accused who was apprehended at the spot, disclosed that his brother/co-accused was also involved---Said co- accused was specifically nominated in the F.I.R.---Witnesses remained consistent with regard to place of recovery, recovery of narcotics and even the names of accused persons---Accused were not orious drug dealers having previous record---All said circumstances, fully involved accused persons with the commission of crime---No enmity, had been alleged against prosecution witnesses---No ground for false implication was alleged---Prosecution having successfully proved its case, and accused having rightly been convicted and sentenced, their appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Bhang
2009 YLR 1040 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : ASIF MEHMOOD
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Bail, grant of--"Post" weighing 1½ Kg. and "bhang " weighing 19 Kg. were allegedly recovered from the "Dawakhana" of accused---On quantitative test quantity of narcotic substance in `Post" was always detected meagre and on this score case against accused would definitely fall within the ambit of section 9 (b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997---Question as to whether "bhang " falls within the domain of the said Act or not was also a matter of further inquiry---Bail was allowed to accused in circumstance.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 3021 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI
Side Opponent : State
----Ss. 6, 9 & 2(d)---Prohibition (Enforce-ment of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.4---Application and scope---bhang /hemp, recovery of---When bhang /hemp is referred to without specification of any particular part of the cannabias plant and without the other details mentioned in S.2(d)(ii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act,
1997, the offence would be covered by the provisions of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979---
Recovery of bhang /hemp would attract the provisions of the control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, only when the requirements of S.2(d) thereof are fulfilled.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 3021 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI
Side Opponent : State
---S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/9 & 2(d)---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.4---Bail, grant of---F.I.R. memorandum of recovery and the Chemical Examiner's report did not specify as to whether the substance allegedly recovered from the possession of accused was the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant or not, as to whether the same excluded the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops or not and as to whether resin had been extracted from the recovered substance or not---Requirements of section 2(d) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, thus prima facie were not fulfilled so as to attract the provisions of the said Act---Allegation against the accused regarding recovery of "bhang " weighing 10 kilograms from her possession, fell within the scope of Article 4 of 'the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which carried a maximum sentence of two years' R.I.---Accused was a woman and nothing was to be recovered from her---Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2006 PCRLJ 1595 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.2(d)(ii) & 9(c)---Bail,- grant of---Furtherinquiry---Alleged material recovered from accused was sent to Chemical Examiner and according to the report, entire recovered material was "bhang " which was not hemp as defined in S.2(d.)(ii) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Such fact had brought case of accused within the ambit of furtherinquiry---Accused were behind the bars since long---Challan had been submitted in the Court, but there was no material progress in the trial---Detention of accused could not be allowed as in criminal jurisprudence there was no concept of punishment before conviction.
Citation Name : 2006 YLR 1111 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : FAIZULLAH
Side Opponent : State
--S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b)(c), 20 & 21---Bail, refusal of-Recovery of three plastic bags containing heroin, charas, bhang and opium weighing 30 grams, 600 grams, 800 grams and 50 gramsrespectively---Non- association of private witnesses in process of recovery though police had previous information of the case---Validity---Combined weight of such contraband was nearer the border line of S.9(b)
(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Witnesses for their non-cooperative attitude could not be associated in process of recovery of narcotics---Objection as to non-compliance of Ss.20 & 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 could be raised at final stage of trial---Recovery of various items including 30 grants heroin, which was most dangerous specie of narcotics, confirmed that accused was having a retail outlet of all varieties of narcotics---Bail was refused to accused in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2003 YLR 1163 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : WAZIR
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----Ss.9(b)(c) & 51---Bail, grant of--Allegation against accused was that two Kgs. of Charas and five Kgs. of bhang were recovered from his possession---Case of accused fell under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which was punishable with death whereas from the possession of each of the remaining accused 1 Kg. of Charas was recovered---Case of said co-accused fell under S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was punishable with seven years- --Case of co accused being distinguishable from the case of accused, rule of consistency would not be applicable in the case ofaccused---Bail could not be granted to an accused under provisions of S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 where his offence was punishable with death---Punishment under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 being death, case of accused fell under prohibitory clause of S.51 of the saidAct--Accused in circumstances was not entitled for Concession of bail.
No cross examination
2014 PCrLJ 1663 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : RAZIA SULTANA
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 15---Possessing and trafficking narcotics and aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences---
Appreciation of evidence---Police constable and S.H.O., who were produced to prove the factum of recovery of huge quantity of narcotics, firmly supported the prosecution story, and they remained unshattered during cross -examination ---Defence failed to create any doubt, beneficial to it in any manner---AssistantSub-Inspector, also strengthened the prosecution case by supporting the fact of safe custody of sample parcels in the Malkhana, as well as safe transaction of the same to the office of Chemical Examiner in an intact condition; which stood further corroborated by the contents of report of Chemical Examiner---Defence could no t get any benefit, because prosecution witnesses corroborated each other on every material point connecting accused with the commission of offence, without any doubt---Recovery from the house of accused was effected, on her own pointation, who herself led the raiding party there---no plausible reason for planting such a huge quantity of narcotics against accused by the complainant had been given by thedefence---Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, was upheld, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2010 SCMR 1962 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : SALAH-UD-DIN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 29---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Re- appraisal of evidence---Recovery of narcotics---Official witnesses, evidence of---Charas weighing 20 kilograms was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Trial Court---
Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that no private witness was associated in recovery proceedings---Validity---Accused was apprehended at the spot from a vehicle on whose search 20 kilogram Charas was found for which F.I.R. was got lodged with promptitude and samples from recovered material were sent to Chemical Expert without any loss of time which were found "Charts" as a result of chemical examination ---no enmity was alleged against prosecution witnesses and there was no possibility for false implication without having any ulterior motive which was never alleged---Defence version was rightly discarded which was denial simplciter and did no t appeal to logic and reason---Reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases had become judicially recognized fact and there was no way out but to consider statement of official witness, as no legal bar or restriction had been imposed in such regard---Police officials were as good witnesses and could be relied upon, if their testimony remained un-shattered during cross examination ---Provisions of S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had provided exclusion of S.103, Cr.P.C. during recovery proceedings---TrialCourt had appreciated the entire evidence and conclusion arrived at was affirmed by High Court which judgment was well based and did no t warrant interference---Leave to appeal was refused.
Citation Name : 2008 SCMR 1254 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : ZAFAR
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Reappraisal of evidence---Recovery of 11 kilograms of opium---Complainant as Investigating Officer---
no public witness---During search, 11 kilograms of opium was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for imprisonment for life, which was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that complainant himself was Investigating Officer and all prosecution witnesses were officials ofAnti-Narcotic Force---Validity---Police Officer was no t prohibited under the law to be a complainant, if he was a witness of an offence---Such officer could also be an Investigating Officer, so long as it did no t prejudice accused person---Though Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses were employees of Anti- Narcotic Force, they had no animosity or rancor against accused to plant such a huge quantity of narcotic material upon him---Defence did no t produce any such evidence to establish animosity qua prosecutionwitnesses---All prosecution witnesses deposed in line to support prosecution case---Witness had passed the test of lengthy cross -examination but defence failed to extract any material contradiction fatal to prosecutioncase---Prosecution had been successful to bring home the guilt of accused to the hilt by placing ocular account, recovery of narcotic material and Chemical Examiner report---Accused failed to point out any error of law in the judgment and the same was unexceptionable---Appeal was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2007 SCMR 1671 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKRAM
Side Opponent : THE STATR
----Ss. 9(c) & 21---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Re-appraisal of evidence---Charas weighing 13Kgs---Raid and search by Assistant Sub-Inspector---Search warrant, dispensing with---On spy information, AssistantSub-Inspector conducted a raid and arrested accused red-handed, who was carrying 13 bags of Charas each weighing one kilogram---Ten grams from each bag was taken out for chemical examination ---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused for life imprisonment---Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was maintained by HighCourt---Plea raised by accused was that under S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, AssistantSub-Inspector was no t competent to make any raid---Validity---Requirement to obtain search warrant could be dispensed with in cases where a quick action was required to be taken and it would be
difficult to obtain search warrant where due to paucity of time apprehension of narcotics being removed or culprits having chance to escape were eminent---If Assistant Sub-Inspector had gone for obtaining search warrant, there was likelihood of accused having escaped away---Assistant Sub-Inspector was justified in conducting raid, search and seizure of huge quantity of narcotic without warrant---Prosecution proved the case against accused without any iota of doubt---Huge quantity of Charas was recovered from accused acid report of Chemical Examiner was also found in positive---Prosecution witnesses had deposed against accused and their testimonies remained unshattered despite lengthy cross -examination ---Accused failed to point out any misreading or no n-reading of evidence warranting interference by Supreme Court---Leave to appeal was refused.
Citation Name : 2011 PCrLJ 1342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : IQBAL SHAH
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 25---Possessin g narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Examin ation of private persons was no t the requirement of law in terms of S. 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Reluctance of general public to become witness in such cases was no w a judicially recognized fact and no option was left but to consider the statements of official witnesses, for which there was no legal bar---Police officials were as good witnesses to be relied upon, if their testimony had remain ed unshattered durin g cross -examin ation---
Recovery of "Charas" havin g no t been disputed, delay in sendin g the samples to Chemical Examin er without any suggestion of tamperin g with the same per se, would no t make the report of Chemical Examin erunreliable---Prosecution evidence with regard to the recovery of "Charas" from the accused in spired confidence and did no t suffer from any legal in firmity, material contradictions or dishonest improvements---
Prosecution witnesses had no enmity with the accused to in volve them in a false case---no mitigatin g circumstance was available to reduce the sentence of accused---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2011 YLR 1526 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)-Prohibition of possession, import or expert and traffickin g of narcotic drugs---Appreciation ofevidence-- Recovered charas weighin g 7.2 kgs., which was sealed at the time of arrest of accused and duly produced in the court was no t de-sealed durin g trial and was no t shown to the witnesses---no suggestion was made by " the counsel for accused durin g cross -examin ation that it was no t the same bag; or that the bag did no t contain the recovered charas---no evidence was available to the effect that the bag was no t sealed; and signatures of Excise official and masheers were no t present on the bag at the time of trial---nomaterial contradiction existed in the evidence of the witnesses; and there was no doubt created from mino r contradictions as to recovery and possession of the contraband/narcotics from accused---no doubt as to enmity or hostility existed between the Excise Police and accused to falsely implicate. him by foistin g such huge amount of charas upon' him; in a bus full of passengers---Counsel for accused had also failed to poin t out any irregularity or impropriety as to weight of charas, takin g samples from the eight patties, sendin g the same to the Chemical Examin er and fin din gs of the Chemical Examin er---Prosecution case could no t be dismissed on the ground that the in vestigation was conducted by the complain ant as no separate win g of "in vestigation" existed in the Excise Department---in vestigatin g Officer was no t alleged to be motivated again st accused and there was no allegation that accused was prejudiced due to his action--Prosecution had proved its case again st accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Counsel for accused had failed to poin t' out any error of law or misreadin g of evidence in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court---no case had been made out by accused whereby appeal could be allowed or sentence awarded by the Trial Court could bereduced---Appeal was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2010 PCrLJ 900 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : Mst. RASHIDA BIBI
Side Opponent : State
S.9(c)---Possession of Narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Police officer could legally act as a complain ant as well as an in vestigatin g Officer, unless the accused was prejudiced by such action---no such objection had been raised durin g the trial, no r the same had been put to the relevant police officer even as a suggestion in his cross -examin ation---Application of section 103, Cr.P.C. havin g been excluded by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, objection about no n-association of any private witness in the recovery proceedin gs, had no substance---Complain ant police officer was a witness to the recovery of "Charas" weighin g six kilograms from the accused---Report of Chemical Examin er was in positive---Conviction and sentence of accused were main tain ed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2006 PCRLJ 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MIR ZAMAN
Side Opponent : State
---S. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---Reduction in sentence---Complain ant though should no t himself be an in vestigatin g Officer of the case, but until and unless a serious prejudice had been caused to accused by double role of in vestigatin g Officer, his in vestigation could no t be said to be illegal no r same could be brushed aside- --Accused,had failed to poin t out any ill-will or motive on part of in vestigatin g Officer to falsely in volve him in the case---Evenslightest suggestion was no t put to in vestigatin g Officer durin g cross -examin ation in that regard---Testimony of said in vestigatin g Officer could no t be said to be based on mala fide---no enmity or motive could be suggested to other prosecution witness who had made statement that Charas was recovered in his presence from possession of accused and he had attested recovery memo--Both prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross -examin ation, but no material discrepancy or contradiction could be poin ted out by accused to discard their testimony---Statement of defence witness with regard to in no cence of accused appeared to be an afterthought and possibility that a false story had been made up to create defence of accused, could no t be ruled out---Prayer of accused that punishment awarded to him be reduced to that of already undergone, could no t be said to be unreasonable---Main tain in g conviction of accused sentence of imprisonment already undergone was considered to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2801 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAEEM SHAH
Side Opponent : State
----. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence--- Defence despite lengthy and searchin g cross -examin ation, had failed to shatter the credibility of the recovery witnesses who belonged to police department---no thin g was brought on the record to show that the recovery witnesses had any malice or grouse again st the accused to falsely implicate him in the case---Occurrence havin g taken place in the early hours of the day, raidin g parry could no t possibly obtain search warrants from the Magistrate and apprehendin g escape of the accused it could enter the place without obtain in g search warrants in view of the provisions of Ss.47 & 48, Cr. P. C.---Difference in the date for the deposit of the sample in the office of the Chemical Examin er was of no help to accused, because durin g cross -examin ation no suggestion was put to the concerned witness or to the in vestigatin g Officer that the packet of the sample was tampered with---Evidence of all the recovery witness which was supported by the Chemical Examin er's report in spired confidence---Conviction of accused was consequently upheld---Accused did no t have the no toriety as a drug pusher---Criterion for awardin g sentence under the law was the quantity of narcotics recovered from the accused---Possibility that the quantity of narcotics was less than ten kilograms, could no t be ruled out, as the evidence on record did no t show that the said weight did no t in clude the weight of the material of the packets in which the heroin waspacked---Out of test kilogram only one gram of heroin was sent to Chemical Examin er for examination---Death sentence of accused was reduced to imprisonment for life in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2003 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : SHAUKAT ALI alias BILLA
Side Opponent : State
---S. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence--in spector Anti-Narcotic Force prepared a report on basis of which formal F.I.R. was drawn and he made detailed statement in accordance with the said report---in spector had been fully supported by other prosecution witness---in spector, in his cross -examin ation had disclosed that he had recorded first version of accused at the spot and he denied the suggestion that accused had pleaded that he had purchased two din ner sets through the in former who in stead of deliverin g the din ner sets had placed narcotic substance in his house---Same plea had been partly taken up by accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., but he did no t produce any evidence in support of his plea---Accused did no t even pick up the courage to appear as a witness in disproof of charge---Prosecution witness was no t even suggested any motive for implicatin g accused falsely---in spector had stated that he had attempted to associate residents of locality durin g the raid, but they had declin ed--Anti-Narcotic Force could no t be expected to have planted false recovery of a huge quantity of narcotic substance again st accused---Mere fact that no search warrant was obtain ed before conductin g raid, would no t render recovery as illegal---Evidence furnished by prosecution witnesses in spired full confidence---Report of Chemical Examin er had shown that substance recovered from the possession of accused was Charas---Case again st accused, in circumstances, stood proved beyond reasonable doubt and there was no reason to take any exception---in view of huge quantity of Charas recovered from the possession of accused, there was no reason to take lenient view---Appeal again st conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was dismissed.
Joint Recovery
Citation Name : 2011 YLR 2318 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : MUNAWAR BIBI
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of accused persons at the place of occurrence and recovery of a huge quantity of narcotic substance "poast" was not denied---Said substance was found lying on a road side near the Bus Stop and accused persons were waiting for transporting the same, such could not be considered as a joint recovery to circumstances---Such was a case of joint possession and joint ownership---SPYinformation had indicated the female accused; and there being no ill-will or motive on the part of the Police to falsely implicate accused person in the case, there was no weight in the argument of counsel for accused that Police had substituted accused persons with the real culprit, had been let off by the Police--All the prosecution evidence, no doubt consisted of Police witnesses, but their testimony was considered as good as public witnesses; andnon-application of S.103, Cr.P.C. in the case had got no implication; as S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had excluded its application---All prosecution witnesses remained. consistent in their depositions and the defence was unable to shake their testimony during the cross-examination---No allegation of personal grudge or animosity was found against the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate accused in the case---Head Constable, in his examination-in-chief deposed about delivery of samples of recovered narcotic substance to the office of the Chemical Examiner---Said prosecution witness was not cross-examined despite an opportunity wasprovided---Question of delay of 9 days in sending the samples of narcotic substance or substitution of the recovered material with some other material containing intoxicant, had become irrelevant---Huge quantity of 180 Kg. of "poast" having been recovered from accused persons by the Police, did not seem to be plausible---Though during the investigation, 8 persons appeared before the Investigating Officers in support of the defence version of accused, but none of said persons appeared before the court during the trial---None of said 8 persons being present at the place of occurrence, their statements were irrelevant for the purpose of determination of guilt or innocence ofaccused---Accused was found present at the place of occurrence in the company of co-accused at the time of raid, she was unable to prove that she was not associated with the co-accused---Prosecution had proved that said accused was associated with the co- accused---Co-accused was found in joint possession of the narcotic substance and was guilty of commission of offence falling under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in circumstances---Accusedladies had failed to make out a case of their acquittal---Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly convicted and sentenced accused persons and impugned judgment of the Trial Court did not call for interference by High Court.
Citation Name : 2011 PCrLJ 398 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : INAYATULLAH
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 497 & 103---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/9(c), 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22 & 25---
Possession of narcotics---Bail, refusal of---Accused were arrested red-handed on the spot by the raiding party when they were taking out the narcotic drug from the secret cavity of the bus---No allegation of mala fide on the part of prosecution was levelled---No reason for foisting huge quantity of narcotics was conceivable---
Objections raised by the accused as to non-compliance of Ss.20, 21 and 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and S.103, Cr.P.C. were misconceived in fact and law---Section 25 of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases---Failure to associate private witness would not vitiate proceesding under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Provisions of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 being directory, non-compliance of the same would not make the conviction bad in the eyes of law---Sufficient material was available against the accused for connecting them with the alleged offence; recovery had been effected from their joint possession---Accused, were not entitled to grant of bail---Application was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2015 PCrLJ 150 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : Mst. SADIA BIBI case
S. 426—suspension ---High Court did not find it appropriate to have deeper appreciation at such stage---
Accused was convicted under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after regular trial and Trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt---High Court declined to suspend the sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court--- Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 SCMR 133 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : The STATE/ANF
Side Opponent : ALEEM HAIDER
S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Possession ofnarcotic---Bail, cancellation of---Statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C. fully implicating theaccused---Effect---Anti-Narcotics Force found 202 kilograms of heroin from a container which contained an exportconsignment---Huge quantity of heroin was recovered---Accused was the main exporter of the consignment---Recordshowed that accused contacted the freight forwarder for export, who in turn hired the services of a clearingagent---Accused had obtained possession of a godown for packing the consignment, which fact was confirmed by the manager of the godown to the police---Driver of the trawler which contained
the consignment stated before investigating officer that the consignment was delivered to him by theaccused---Statements of prosecution witnesses (under S. 161, Cr.P.C.) fully implicated the accused, connecting him with the alleged offence---Bail granted to accused by High Court was cancelled in such circumstances---
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2015 SCMR 279 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : GUL NOOR ALI
S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Public witness not supporting prosecution case---Separate samples from each packet not taken---Effect---Narcotic weighing 13450 grams was allegedly recovered from a vehicle, which was driven by the accused---Prosecution witnesses consisted of police officials and a public witness---Public witness stated that he was working as a Razakar with the police on patrol duty, and that when the vehicle in question was stopped and searched nothing was recovered on account of which he was declared as a hostile witness---Prosecution thereafter proceeded with its case by adducing evidence of other prosecution witnesses who were all police officials---Public witness associated with recovery of narcotic had not supported the prosecution case, which created a dent in the veracity of the recovery being effected, and thus serious doubts had arisen, benefit of which had to go to the accused---
Separate samples had not been taken from each and every packet for chemical analysis rather only one sample weighing 10 grams had been separated and sent for chemical analysis, and it had also not been specified as to from which packet the sample was separated---Such circumstances created serious doubt in the prosecution case, benefit of which had to go the accused---Appeal was allowed accordingly and conviction and sentence of accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was set aside.
Citation Name : 2015 SCMR 308 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : SHAUKAT ALI alias BILLA
Side Opponent : State Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), recovery of narcotic was proved only to the extent of 10 kilograms---Accused in such circumstances could at most be convicted under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for narcotic weighing 10 kilograms---Proviso to S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provided that if quantity of recovered narcotic exceeded 10 kilograms, the punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for life---
Citation Name : 2015 PCrLJ 30 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : NOOR MUHAMMAD
9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account was submitted by three officials, and such account of the evidence had gone unshaken, despite said witnesses were subjected to the lengthy cross-examination---Entries appeared to have been produced to substantiate the movement of said officials, and report of chemical analyst had also been produced, which had established that the parcel sent to him was charas---Truck driven by one of accused persons, having been found to be loaded with contraband material, possession thereof could not be said that same was not to be with accused persons, who had been controlling the Truck………-Evidence having gone unshaken, mere delay in sending the sample could hardly be of any importance---Case against accused persons, having been proved, they were rightly convicted and sentenced.
Citation Name : 2015 PCrLJ 300 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : Syed RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH
s.6, 9(c), 25 & 29---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---
Appreciation of evidence---Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C.--- Scope--- Both the prosecution witnesses had deposed in detail about the day of the incident, and their evidence was consistent with each other---Both witnesses were subjected to lengthy and exhaustive cross-examination, but defence was unable to shatter their evidence, which otherwise was confidence inspiring---Said witness deposed that accused persons were available at their homes; and a huge quantity of narcotics was recovered---Prosecution had discharged its onus as per S.29 of the Act and had successfully established the recovery of the contraband, the source of information, and was consistent about the departure from Police Station and arrival at the spot---Evidence against accused persons did not suffer from anycontradiction---Accused persons had been unable to disprove the allegations levelled against them---Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Technicalities of procedural nature, were to be ignored as special law would prevail over the general law---Prosecution witnesses having fully implicated accused persons, there was no reason for false involvement and Trial Court was left with no option, but to pass conviction to accused persons-
--In absence of any illegality, impropriety, misreading or non-reading of evidence, conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons, was just and proper and same were maintained.
Citation Name : 2015 PCrLJ 213 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : GHULAM QAMBAR
Ss. 9(c) & 15---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516-A---Possession and trafficking of narcotic, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences---Disposal/destruction of recovered narcotic---Appreciation ofevidence---Prosecution case was that 54 packets of charas weighing 54 Kgs. and 7 bottles of liquor were recovered from the Dera of accused persons---Recovered case property was not produced before the Trial Court- --Out of seized 54 Kgs. charas, only 270 grams were separated and sent to Chemical Examiner, and remaining quantity was allegedly destroyed on the request of the prosecution with the permission of the Trial Court under S.516-A, Cr.P.C. without serving any notice to accused persons or their counsel during the trial---Validity---
Alleged destruction of case-property being violative of due process of law and without providing an opportunity of hearing to accused person, lacked legal sanctity, which could not be endorsed---To discharge the onus of proof, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that 54 Kgs. charas was recovered from the possession of accused persons; and same was kept in safe custody as incriminating material/case-propertyto produce the same before the court---Unless the incriminating material was produced before the court; and the court was satisfied that alleged recovery was made, sealed and kept properly in accordance with law, it would be difficult to endorse that accused could be held liable for alleged recovery---Benefit of non-productionof incriminating material before the Trial Court, could not be extended to the prosecution, rather same would go to accused person---Prosecution had failed to establish its case under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 against accused---In view of the prosecution evidence with regard to securing of 270 grams of charas as sample from alleged recovered charas for chemical examination, and in the light of report of the Chemical Examiner, declaring the sample as charas, case of the prosecution was established only to the extent of 270 grams of charas against accused persons---Accused persons were liable for that quantity, which was punishable with seven years---Accused were convicted and sentenced accordingly---Accused persons having already served more than the sentence of seven years, they were ordered to be released forthwith, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 27 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANSide Appellant : ALLAUDDIN
S. 9(c)---Recovery of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in lodging F.I.R. due to practical difficulties---
Charas weighing 306 kilograms was recovered from vehicle driven by accused and Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life---Plea raised by accused was that F.I.R. and statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded with a delay of 7 hours---Validity---Authorities apprehended accused along with contraband Charas on5-5-2011 at about 3-00 a.m. and due to odd hours of night, it was not possible to proceed towards police station, therefore, F.I.R. was lodged at 8-00 a.m. on 5-5-2011---Time of few hours elapsed due to practical difficulties, even otherwise mere delay in lodging F.I.R. was not fatal nor due to such delay prosecution derived any undueadvantage---Statements of prosecution witnesses were worthy of credence and there was no occasion to disbelievethem---Variation in statements of witnesses, which were neither material nor serious enough to affect case of prosecution, were of no avail---Statements of witnesses had to be read as a whole and Court should not pick up sentences in isolation from entire statement ignoring its proper course---Judgment passed by Trial Court waswell-founded and High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court to accused---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 PLD 69 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : NASEEBULLAH
9(c)---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.11---Juvenile Justice Rules, 2001, R.6---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Minority of accused---Effect---Release of minor accused on probation---Contention of counsel for accused was that accused who at the time of incident was below the age of 18 years, being a juvenile, was entitled to be dealt with under S.11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000---Validity---
Accused though at the time of commission of offence was a juvenile, but at the time of arrest and conclusion of his trial, and passing the impugned judgment of conviction, he had attained the age of 19/20 years---Mere minority orjuvenile-ship of accused was not the criteria for grant of relief under S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, in matter of conviction---There could be some minor offences, in which sentence could be normally short, and if the court passed an order of conviction, the beneficial provisions could be exercised in his favour---If, however, accused was charged for a heinous offence and sentenced to life imprisonment, his case could not be treated at par with minor offences---Age, seriousness of the offence, and past record of criminal activities of accused, at the time of conviction, would also be a relevant factor; which would also be adhered to---Juvenile Justice System, which was meant to treat a child accused with care and sensitivity, offering him a chance to reform and settle into the mainstream of society, same could not be allowed to be used as a ploy to dupe the course of justice, while conducting trial; and treatment of heinous offences---Court must be
sensitive in dealing with the juveniles, who were involved in cases of serious natures like druglord, murder, gang rape, terrorism, sexual molestation, and host of other offences---Minor/Juvenile accused could never be allowed to abuse the statutory protection and concession/rather involvement in a flagitious crime, must be meted out stringent punishment to discourage the involvement of minors by the people for settling their score through them (Juveniles).
Citation Name : 2014 PLD 69 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : NASEEBULLAH
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Both Station House Officer of Police Station, the seizing officer and prosecution witness, who were marginal witness of the recovery memo being star witnesses of the prosecution, had furnished the ocular account of the occurrence---Both had corroborated each other on all material particulars of the incident; such as the mode and manner of reaching of accused at the spot in the motorcar; its chase by the Police party; and recovery of narcotics from the same and had established their presence at the spot at the time of arrest of accused; and recovery from the vehicle driver---Said witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination, but their testimony could not be shattered on material aspects of thecase---Chemical Analysis Report with regard to contraband, was positive---Burden of proving that accused were not in possession or knowledge of the contraband in the motor car, was upon accused persons, but they failed to appear and explain the same---Accused persons had furnished different versions regarding their travelling at the odd hours of night, which did not appeal to a prudent mind---Recovery of arms and ammunition from accused had further supplemented the story of prosecution---Plea of substitution and false implication, raised by accused was nothing, but merely an attempt to hide their own guilt---False, fabricated and afterthought defence version, had rightly been rejected by the Trial Court---Accused had failed to attract any circumstance to create doubt in the prosecution case qua his innocence---In view of huge quantity of 3 maunds of backed charas and its price which was in million, question of foisting the same against accused, did not appeal to a prudent mind---No evidence was available to show previousill-will, grudge, enmity or rancour of accused persons with prosecution witnesses---Mere fact that witnesses were Police Officials, would not discard their testimony because Police Officials, were as good witnesses like others, and their testimony could be relied upon unless and until any enmity or ill-will was proved---No hard and fast rule existed that only private witness would speak the truth---Prosecution had fully proved its case against accused through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence---Trial Court which had properly appreciated the evidence on record, had rightly convicted and sentenced accused---Counsel for accused having failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, which could warrant interference, appeal against impugned judgment, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 PLD 69 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : NASEEBULLAH
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Delay in sending samples for analysis---Effect---Investigating Officer was not barred to send the sample beyond 72 hours of the seizure---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, could not control substantive provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, and Rules were to be applied in such a manner that its operation would not frustrate the purpose of the Act under which said Rules were framed---Failure to follow said Rules, would not render the search, seizure and arrest under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, an absolute nullity and make entire prosecution case doubtful, except for the consequence, provided in said Rules---Said Rules were directory and not mandatory---Belateddispatch of sample for analysis, would not be fatal to the prosecution case, in absence of any objection regarding the same, having been tampered or manipulated.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 490 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : RASHEED Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Evidence of Police Officer, who was prosecution witness, and that of Mashir of the arrest and recovery, had supported the prosecution case on each and every material particular of the case---Evidence of said witnesses further got corroboration by Mashirnama, F.I.R. as well as positive chemical report available on record---Prosecution witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, but their evidence remained un-shattered---Nothing had been brought on record by accused to show any ill-will of prosecution witnesses against him---Few minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which were inconsequential in nature, were not enough to shatter the prosecution case---Evidence of Police Officials, were to be considered as of other witnesses within the probability of truth and belief in accordance with law, when nothing had been brought on record to show that Police witnesses had any ill-will or grudge against accused---Section 103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable to the proceedings under the provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Sample parcel though was dispatched for testing purpose after lapse of more than two months, but said delay, was not
helpful to the accused, as evidence of witnesses of recovery of charas inspired confidence---In absence of any proof of tampering with the material, delay in sending samples to laboratory for chemical analysis was of no avail to accused---Sufficient material being available before the Trial Court in shape of unimpeachable ocular evidence coupled with Mashirnama of arrest and positive report of Chemical Examiner for establishing the guilt of accused for the alleged charge, Trial Court had rightly convicted accused---In absence of any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court calling for interference, High Court maintained said judgment with modification that as the alleged recovery was 1500 grams charas which was below 2 Kilograms, sentence provided against said recovery which was five years and fine of Rs.20,000, was modified and reduced to four years and six months' R.I. in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 YLR 37 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANSide Appellant : SAJJAD ALI
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Bail, refusalof---Accused were named in the F.I.R. with a specific role attributed to them that a huge quantity of narcotics (charas) was recovered from their possession---Case against accused persons prima facie attracted the provisions of Ss.6, 7, 8 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, punishable under S.9(c) of the Act for which the punishment was provided to death, imprisonment for life or 14 years---No authentic documents had been produced by the counsel for accused regarding case of accused to prove that accused was a juvenile---
Accused were not entitled for the concession of bail, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 267 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANSide Appellant : ALI JAN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c), 37 & 39---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Freezing and forfeiture of assets---Amount lying in the accounts of accused had been improperly seized and confiscated, as the Trial Court failed to inquire properly and adjudicate upon the application filed under S.37 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997---Trial Court failed to put substance of the allegation to accused; and did not give the accused a chance to show that amount lying in his account was not the proceed of the narcotics---Prima facie, duty ofAnti-Narcotics Force Authorities was to collect material to connect the alleged account that was maintained by accused; and showing that same was the result of the proceed of the narcotics; and that he had no other means to earn or deposit the amount---Impugned order being not legal was set aside---Application filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force under S.37 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would be treated as pending before the Special Judge concerned, who was directed to observe the legal formalities as provided under S.39 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and to decide the matter in accordance with law.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 267 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANSide Appellant : ALI JAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution had successfully established, the recovery of contraband charas and opium from the possession of accused, whose presence at the place of incident was not denied---All the three witnesses specifically stated that Anti-Narcotics Force Commander received source information about the presence of narcotic substance with accused for transportation of the same out of thecountry---Evidence of the prosecution was not controverted or rebutted successfully---Evidence produced by accused in their defence also described their involvement in the commission of the alleged offence---Accused neither denied their presence at the site nor justified their presence, whereas record had reflected that none of them was permanently residing there---No illegality, impropriety, misreading and non-reading of the evidence was found in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court---Prosecution evidence was not only corroboratory but also reliable and confidence inspiring---
Nothing was in the evidence which could show any ulterior motive or design to involve or implicate accused in the alleged offence---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the Trial Court, was maintained and appeal to that extent was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1663 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : RAZIA SULTANA
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 15---Possessing and trafficking narcotics and aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences---
Appreciation of evidence---Police constable and S.H.O., who were produced to prove the factum of recovery of huge quantity of narcotics, firmly supported the prosecution story, and they remained unshattered duringcross-examination---Defence failed to create any doubt, beneficial to it in any manner---Assistant Sub- Inspector, also strengthened the prosecution case by supporting the fact of safe custody of sample parcels in the Malkhana, as well as safe transaction of the same to the office of Chemical Examiner in an intact condition; which stood further corroborated by the contents of report of Chemical Examiner---Defence could not get any benefit, because prosecution witnesses corroborated each other on every material point connecting accused with the commission of offence, without any doubt---Recovery from the house of accused was effected, on her own pointation, who herself led the raiding party there---No plausible reason for planting such a huge quantity of narcotics against accused by the complainant had been given by thedefence---Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, was upheld, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1649 LAHORE-HIGH-
S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5---Possessing and trafficking ofnarcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Police Inspector who appeared as witness, almost had reiterated the story narrated by him in the complaint---Said witness gave minute details of the narcotics which were recovered from possession of accused---Witness was fully corroborated by other Police Official who was also a member of raidingparty---Contention of counsel for accused persons regarding violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., had no force, because S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of the said provision of Cr.P.C., from the cases of narcotics---Place of recovery was not a public place, but was a house; there was no possibility of any private person to witness the proceedings specially during the night when occurrence took place---Directions given in Rr.4 & 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, were directory in nature and not mandatory at all, coupled with the fact that the same did not override the main statute---Seventy-seven kilograms charas and13-1/2 kilograms opium were recovered from possession/at the behest of accused persons; and accused persons never contended that such a huge quantity of narcotics was not recovered from them---Samples, though were sent to the laboratory after 15 days of recovery of narcotics, but the defence could not prove that the samples were tampered with during that period---Delay in submission of samples to the laboratory, was not fatal to the prosecution case to initiate the conviction---Positive reports of the laboratory supported the prosecution case-- -Accused who was apprehended at the spot, disclosed that his brother/co-accused was also involved---Said co- accused was specifically nominated in the F.I.R.---Witnesses remained consistent with regard to place of recovery, recovery of narcotics and even the names of accused persons---Accused were notorious drug dealers having previous record---All said circumstances, fully involved accused persons with the commission of crime---
No enmity, had been alleged against prosecution witnesses---No ground for false implication was alleged---
Prosecution having successfully proved its case, and accused having rightly been convicted and sentenced, their appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2014 PCrLJ 1649 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : GHULAB ALI alias GHULABO
Side Opponent : State
Preamble & S. 9---Intent and object of promulgation of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was to control the production, processing and trafficking of narcotics etc., and having been promulgated for that special purpose, its operative provisions should not be crushed on mere technicalities---In achieving the object of that Act, court should be vibrant and minor irregularities or discrepancies, must be overlooked.
Citation Name : 2014 SCMR 1603 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. NASREEN BIBI
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c) ---Possession of narcotic---Reappraisal of evidence ---Sentence, reduction in---Narcotic found in different
bags--- Separate samples to be taken from each bag--- Consolidated sample taken from all bags---Effect---
Accused-lady was apprehended while in possession of four bags allegedly containing 40 kilograms of poast---
Trial Court convicted accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced her imprisonment for life, which sentence was upheld by the High Court---Validity---F.I.R. and memo of recovery showed that a consolidated sample of five hundred grams was separated from the four bags and sent for
testing--- No separate sample had been secured (from each bag) and tested vis-à-vis the substance contained in
each bag--- Since only one consolidated sample was taken from the four bags, thus only one bag out of the four
bags could be counted towards the guilt of accused---If four bags contained forty kilograms of poast, then one bag could be said to have contained ten kilograms of poast, and it was only such quantity which could be
considered against the accused for the purposes of her conviction and sentence---Sentence of accused was reduced in such circumstances from imprisonment for life to that already undergone by her---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : SAJJAD AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant and prosecution witness had fully supported the prosecution version, on account of recovery; they were subjected to lengthy cross- examination, but the defence had failed to bring on record any evidence favouring the defenceversion---Other prosecution witness also reiterated the facts as given in the F.I.R., as well as uttered by the complainant; he was also subjected to lengthy searching cross-examination, but with no fruitful result---Noobjection had been raised to the effect that the contraband was unsealed or tampered with, therefore, delay in sending the sample for examiner would not affect result of Chemical Examiner---Report of Chemical Examiner was positive, and the defence had not disputed the nature of contraband---Contention that no private person having been associated to witness the recovery, recovery was false, was devoid of force as by virtue of S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, provision of S.103, Cr.P.C. was excluded---TrialCourt while taking note of fact that accused was first offender, had already inflicted alternative sentence of imprisonment for life---Prosecution had fully established its case against accused through leading tangible andconfidence-inspiring evidence---Trial Court while appreciating the evidence available on the record in its true perspective, had rightly recorded the conviction and sentence against accused.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1333 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : IRFAN ALI
Side Opponent : State
S. 516-A--- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Superdari of vehicle used in transportation ofnarcotic---Scope---Police took vehicle in question into possession after 40 kilograms of charas was found from itstrunk---Petitioner filed application for superdari of vehicle before Trial Court contending that he was the actual and sole owner of the same, and that there was nothing on record to show that narcotic recovered from vehicle was transported with consent, connivance or complicity of the petitioner---Said application was dismissed by TrialCourt---Validity---Record did not show as to from whom petitioner purchased the vehicle in question---Trial of the case had not concluded therefore it could not be said with certainty that petitioner was not in conscious knowledge of recovered contraband---Since vehicle in question was case property of a case involving huge quantity of charas, it had to be exhibited during trial of the case and its custody could not be granted to petitioner on superdari---No material was available on record to show that petitioner was ostensible owner of the vehicle---Trial Court had rightly refused custody of vehicle on superdari to the petitioner---
Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2014 PLD 127 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MIAN KHAN
Side Opponent : State
Preamble, S.9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Object of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---
Discretion of court---Scope---Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had been enacted to curb the menace of trafficking of narcotics---Involvement of ladies and juvenile, in the said business had become order of the day, as they could easily earn benefit of their gender and tender age---Mandatory remedies and concessions accorded by the law could not be withheld---While exercising discretionary power, regard must be had to the consequences, ensuing therefrom---Courts were required to strike the balance, as future of the whole generation could not be sacrified at the altar of unwarranted concession to a drug trafficker---Impugnedjudgment of the Trial Court, whereby accused was convicted and sentenced, could not be interfered with, in circumstances.
2014 PLD 127 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MIAN KHAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 11---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---
Releasing accused on probation---Discretion of Juvenile Court---Juvenile Court in its judgment found the convict of 20 years of age at the time of his arrest---Convict was also found in possession of his computerized National Identity Card which could only be issued on attaining the age of 18 years---On the basis of report of Standing Medical Board, convict was around 18 years, and he was referred to the Juvenile Court for trial---Case was registered against convict in 2010 when he was found at the border line of juvenility, whereas at the moment he was no more juvenile---Section 11(b) of the Juvenile Justice Ordinance, 2000, squarely copes with such a
situation, stipulating that a child offender could be sent to borstal institution, until he attained the age of 18 years, or for the period of his imprisonment, whichever was earlier---Said statutory provision was clear manifestation of the intention of the Legislature that on attaining the age of 18 years, convict/juvenile, was no more entitled to any such leniency, as he lost his status of juvenile accused in such eventuality---Firstly,release of juvenile convict on probation was a discretionary matter only to be decided by the Juvenile Court, and secondly, the Juvenile Court could not exercise such discretion on extinguishment of the status of the convict as juvenile---Trial Court had turned down the plea of convict on the same ground which was in accordance with law and within the parameters of S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
Citation Name : 2014 YLR 1550 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANSide Appellant : GHULAM MUSTAFA
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Raiding party, on the pointation of accused, recovered a huge quantity of 'charas' and opium---One of the prosecution witnesses, had given the full account of episode and produced 'Marasila' and disclosure memo, whereas other prosecution witness had corroborated said witness, on each and every material particular by making a detailed statement---Prosecutionhad established the guilt to the hilt beyond reasonable doubt---Neither there was any misreading or non- reading of evidence, nor could counsel for accused had pointed out the same---Prosecution witnesses, inspired confidence; and could not be shaken despite lengthy cross-examination---Accused had admitted that Anti- Narcotic Force, had got no grudge or ill-will against him---Not comprehensible as to why Anti-NarcoticForce, would plant such a huge quantity of narcotic against accused---Forensic Science Laboratory's report, had proved the fact that the recovered materials were 'charas' and 'opium'---Sample of 'charas' was 1-1/2 Kilo grams, which itself fell under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; and 500 grams if treated to have been taken from one packet that was 10 Kilograms per packet, that too, attracted the sentence that had been awarded to accused---Contention that on the same set of evidence, accused had been convicted, and hisco-accused had been acquitted, was of no avail, because the courts were required to 'sift the grain fromchaff'-- -Findings of the Trial Court, were above board and not liable to be disturbed---No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, as the court after proper appraisal of the evidence and attending each and every aspect of the case, had rightly found accusedguilty---Counsel for accused, having failed to make out a case for interference, in the impugned judgment, appeal against said judgment was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 YLR 1665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD YOUSIF TANIO
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Recovery of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in sending samples---Policewitnesses---Effect---Charas weighing 9 Maunds and 30 kilograms (390 kgs) was recovered from vehicle in which all three accused were present---Trial Court convicted all three accused and sentenced them to imprisonment forlife---Plea raised by accused was that there was unexplained delay of four days in sending samples to laboratory and all recovery witnesses were police officials---Validity---Held, it was not requirement of law that whole contraband material should be sent for chemical examination for opinion of Chemical Examiner, only a portion was to besent---Delay of four days in sending samples could not be treated as fatal in absence of objections regarding the same having been tampered with or manipulated---Sample was sent to Chemical Examiner after four days of recovery but from evidence of complainant and investigating officer no question was put to any of them as to where the sample was lying during those four days---Such delay in sending samples was immaterial and did not adversely affect prosecution case---Though prosecution witnesses had given different weight of allegedly recovered contraband material than the one disclosed in F.I.R. but on the basis of such difference in weight alone it could not be said that no recovery was effected from accused and they could not claim acquittal in such a heinous offence involving capitalpunishment---Evidence of police officials could not be disbelieved as a whole merely because of their being police officials until and unless some mala fide or enmity was brought on record to indicate false implication of accused in case, which factor was missing---Trial Court did not commit any illegality while convicting accused persons---HighCourt maintained conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 983 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : ABDUL SATTAR BAIG
Side Opponent : State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.395, 411, 420, 468, 471, 409, 170 & 171---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),S.13---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(a)---Dacoity, dishonestly receiving stolen property, cheating, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, criminal breach of trust by public servant, personating a public servant, wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent, possessing unlicensed arms, possessing and trafficking narcotics---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---
Accused after obtaining ad interim bail, had not joined investigation---Prima facie, reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused were involved in commission of offences and did not deserve grant of bail.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 516 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : Mst. THELAY DARA
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 29---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---
Contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the star witnesses of the prosecution, could not be considered so material so as to shatter and make doubtful the recovery of the contraband---Such discordant and conflicting portion of evidence, could at the most be termed as human error---Recovery of contraband could not be doubted, when there was no defence and explanation against, prima facie, established recovery of narcotics by accused as required under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---No enmity of the prosecution witnesses, who were Police Officials, with accused, was ever suggested by accused---No explanation came forward from the side of accused as to for what purpose, she was present there with her co- accused, having no relation with him---In absence of any such explanation and simple denial by accused, would be sufficient to prove her guilt---Weight of recovered substance, was less than the quantity as prescribed in proviso to S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997---Accused, in circumstances, had become entitled to the benefit of a borderline case---Accused was a first offender having no previous history of being involved in such like cases---Accused being woman, would deserveleniency---Sentence awarded to accused being too harsh, called for reduction---Maintaining conviction of accused, her sentence was reduced from 'Twenty-Five' years R.I. to 'Ten' years R.I., and that of fine from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.50,000.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 561 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : AZIZ ULLAH KHAN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9 & 32--- Possessing and trafficking narcotics--- Articles connected with narcotics---Taking of samples---
Where wrappers, slabs, cakes, packets, boxes, containers, etc. were recovered, it was mandatory to take separate sample from every separate packet, wrapper, slab, box, container and cake to make it a 'Representative Sample' of narcotic substance recovered.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 662 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : GUL ZAMAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 9---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5---Recovery of narcoticsubstance---Delay in sending samples to Government Analyst---Effect---Provisions of Rr. 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, are directory and substantial compliance issufficient-- -Even where there is no compliance at all, provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, are not invalidated by such non-compliance, if the act otherwise is done in accordance with law.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 22 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IMRAN SHEIKH Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c), 22, 25 & 36---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Stringent sentences having been provided under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, said Act had to be construed strictly; and relevant provisions of law dealing with the procedure, as well as furnishing proof, like report of Expert etc., were to be followed strictly in the interest of justice; otherwise, it would become impossible to hold that total commodity recovered from the possession of accused, was narcotics.
Citation Name : 2014 MLD 690 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : FAKHAR ZAMAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigatingcircumstances---Five witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove its case, had given a vivid account of the occurrence in the court---No discrepancy was noticed in the statement of any of the witnesses as could create doubt in the prosecution version---All the witnesses were subjected to a searching cross-examination---Nothing was on record as could even remotely suggest that the incriminating substance was either planted, or accused was falsely charged and there was no doubt as to the guilt of accused---Accused who was a young man, was sentenced to lifeimprisonment---Accused besides being a patient of Hepatitis-C was also a first offender, having no history of being involved in narcotics cases---Material available on record showed that the accused appeared to be a carrier---Role and conduct of accused, in circumstances, would call for lesser punishment---
While maintaining conviction of accused, his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to ten years' R.I., by leaving the fine and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., intact.
Citation Name : 2014 YLR 1081 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : WAJID ALI
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c), 33 & 48---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Confiscation of vehicle allegedly involved in offence---Special court having confiscated the vehicle being involved in the crime, appellant had sought return of the same claiming to be last purchaser of vehicle in question---Appellant neither during investigation nor during trial, bothered to apply to the concerned quarters for return of the vehicle; and it was exactly after one year of the custody of the vehicle, that appellant applied for return of the same, and that too by filing appeal---Original owners had also not applied for return of vehicle and were not aggrieved of the impugned order of confiscation---When the vehicle was taken into possession, no registration book or valid documents were produced or recovered from accused, and neither same were exhibited during trial---Appeal claiming the return of vehicle in question being without any merits was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1289 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : ABDUL HAMEED
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 51(1)---Possession of narcotic---Bail, refusalof---Narcotic hidden in a vehicle---Packets of charas weighing 14 kilograms in total were allegedly recovered by the police from beneath the front seat of the driver, and from beneath the front and rear seats of the vehicle---
Accused was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time---Quantity of charas recovered was huge (i.e. 14 kilograms)---Case of prosecution was duly supported by statements of police officials, who were eye- witnesses of the occurrence and had no mala fide or ill-will to implicate the accused--- Report of Forensic Science Laboratory was in positive---Offence alleged entailed capital punishment and fell within the restrictive clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., and also attracted the embargo contained in S. 51(1) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Bail petition of accused was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1295 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : BARKAT
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Accused persons had explicitly understood the charge against them---Witnesses in the case were Excise Officials, their evidence would not become invalid and could not be discarded, unless they were shown to be inimical and/or interested---
Accused persons had admitted in their statements recorded on oath that they had no enmity with said officialwitnesses--- Testimony of such witnesses could not be brushed aside, unless and until the contrary was proved---TrialCourt had rightly believed the same to the extent of recovery of narcotics from the vehicle---No embargo existed on the complainant being Investigating Officer---Accused was driver of the vehicle and the driver had to be presumed to be having knowledge of availability of recovered charas; and such presumption was corroborated with theevidence---Accused, in circumstances, had rightly been convicted.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1344 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : IBRAR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c), 32(2) & 48---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Confiscation of vehicle---Car in question taken into custody on the allegation that same was being used by appellant/accused in the commission of crime, was confiscated in favour of State and its auction was also ordered---Said car was given to appellant in superdari by Special Court, but ignoring such aspect of the matter; and also violating the process of issuance of notice to the appellant/owner and to enquire into the matter, confiscation of the car was ordered by the Special Court---
Impugned judgment to the extent of confiscation of car was nullity in the eye of law, and was not sustainable---
To such extent impugned order was set aside, and matter was remanded to the Special Court with the direction, first to issue notice to the owner of car, and then to conduct a discrete inquiry, while maintaining superdari with the appellant; and thereafter pass an order with regard to disposal of car.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : Syed GULLAB SHAH
Side Opponent : State
S. 497--- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 4 & 5---Possession and transportation of narcotic---Bail, refusalof---Accused was apprehended by the police on spy information and was found to be transporting huge quantity of narcotic i.e. 8 kilograms of charas through a car, which was under his control at the time ofarrest---Although only police officials and no private persons were associated as witnesses to the alleged recovery, but it was no ground to grant bail unless some mala fides appeared on part of police---No enmity orill-will had been brought on record by accused against the police to show their false implication in thecase---Although samples were sent to the chemical expert with some delay, but Rr. 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 placed no bar on the investigating officer to send the samples beyond 72 hours of seizure of the narcotic substance---Accused was refused bail accordingly.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : Syed GULLAB SHAH
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 497 & 103--- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9 & 25---Possession of narcotic---Bail---
Witnesses of recovery---Only police officials--- Non-association of private witnesses---Effect---Mere fact that witnesses were police officials could not be considered as a good ground to grant bail or discard evidence of police unless some mala fides appeared on record on part of police officials.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : Syed GULLAB SHAH
Side Opponent : State
S. 497--- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possession and transportation of narcotic---
Bail---Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) police recovering narcotic from possession of accused---Plea of accused that CIA police was not empowered to effect recovery of narcotic substances---Validity---Consideringsuch plea amounted to deeper appreciation of evidence, which was not permissible at bail stage--- Accused was refused bail accordingly.
Citation Name : 2014 SCMR 1603 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : Mst. NASREEN BIBI
Side Opponent : State
S. 9---Possession of narcotic---Sample sent for examination---Narcotic found in different bags/packets---
Samples had to be secured from every bag or packet of narcotic substance, and each such sample was to be separately tested by a chemical examiner.
Citation Name : 2014 YLR 31 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD IBRAR
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---F.I.R. was lodged on the same day of occurrence---
Nothing in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses could give impression that they were to implicate the accused falsely or were prompted by his enemies---Testimony of the said witnesses was free from any material infirmity---Vehicle carrying the narcotic was in active control of the accused---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory was available on record which showed that the stuff recovered was charas---Saidreport was free from doubt---At the time of seizure of vehicle and personal search of the accused, a registration book had been recovered and said vehicle was customs paid---Charge against the accused had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 542 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : SADAM
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Ss.4(4), 5 & 7---Possessing and trafficking of narcotic---Declaring accused as Juvenile, and ordering separate trial---Accused had claimed that he being juvenile, his trial should be conducted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000---Medical Board had given opinion that age of accused was about 20 years---Alleged incident took place 1 year, 5 months and 21 days prior to the date of medicalexamination---Age of accused on the date, the alleged offence took place, was about 18 years, 6 months and 9days---Accused in circumstances, was aged about 18 to 19 years at the time of occurrence---
Provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, were to be interpreted liberally; and when two views were possible, one favouring accused had to be taken, particularly qua the juvenility, inasmuch as it could be proved to be helpful for rehabilitation of accused on account of aid of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000- --Accused was entitled to the benefit of the Ordinance and was declared as juvenile; and his trial was ordered to be separated from the case of co-accused and could be sent to the Juvenile Court.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 561 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : AZIZ ULLAH KHAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)--- Possessing and trafficking narcotics--- Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Co-accusedhad already served out 16 years, 11 months and 22 days, including the remissions; and accused had served out of 17 years, 6 months and 14 days including the remissions---Both accused persons, in circumstances, had served out more sentence as provided in sentence policy, laid down in Ghulam Murtaza v. The State PLD 2009 Lahore 362---Conviction of accused persons under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was upheld, but their sentence was reduced to already undergone by them including the fine.
Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 454 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SALAM NOOR
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Bail, refusal of---
Narcotic hidden in a vehicle---Driver of vehicle, liability of---Conscious knowledge of presence of narcotic---
Scope---Accused was driving a truck, which was stopped at a police checkpoint---Upon search of the truck 40 packets of narcotic weighing 40 kilograms were found from the spare tyre of the vehicle---Plea of accused was that he did not have any conscious knowledge of the narcotic in the spare tyre, and that co-accused, who was sitting in the front seat of the truck, had already been granted bail---Validity---Driver of the vehicle was supposed to be custodian of the same---Merely shrugging of shoulders by the accused that he had no conscious knowledge of what was present in the spare tyre of the vehicle was a self-defeatingargument---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of all the samples was in the affirmative---Caseof accused was different from the co-accused, who had been granted bail on the grounds that he was not driver of the vehicle, therefore, he could not be saddled with responsibility of possession of contraband recovered from spare tyre of the vehicle---Accused was prima facie connected with the commission of theoffence---Bail petition was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 822 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : QADEER alias TEERAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic--- Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---"Representative sample"--
-Scope---Accused was held guilty for possessing 15 Kgs. of contraband "crushed poppy heads"---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine---Validity---Representative sample of 10 grams was in fact taken out of 15 Kgs. of narcotics---Sample of only ten grams from huge quantity of 15 Kgs. of crushed poppy heads could not be termed as "representative sample"---Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had to be construed strictly and relevant provision of law dealing with the procedure as well as furnishing proof like report of expert etc. were to be followed strictly in the interest of justice, otherwise it would be impossible to hold that the total commodity recovered from the possession of the accused was narcotic---
Accused deserved remission in sentence---Sentence was reduced to one already undergone by the accused---
Appeal was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1308 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD FARAZ
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Accused who was driving bus in question, would be held to be presumed to be in possession of narcotic substance hidden in secret cavities of the bus---No legal prohibition existed for Police Official to be a complainant, if he was a witness to the commission of offence and also to be an Investigating Officer as long as it would not in any way, prejudice theaccused---No prejudice had been shown on record to have been caused to the accused---No question regarding driving licence was asked in the case; and it was not even suggested that there was no secret cavities in the bus, in question---Counsel for accused had not been able to point out any contradiction between evidence of Mashir and evidence of complainant---Accused had been proved guilty through evidence produced before the Trial Court---Counsel also had failed to point out any piece of evidence, which could create doubt in the story of prosecution, or any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court whereby accused was convicted and sentenced---Appeal was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1874 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SARDOOR KHAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Case was that of capital charge and in such like cases evidence must come from some unimpeachable source, which should be supported by strong piece of evidence which in the present case was missing---Arrest of accused on the information of the informer, that he had connection with the Truck in question, and non-production of said informer as prosecution witness, was beyondcomprehension---Prosecution having not been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence of accused recorded by the Trial Court, was set aside---Accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him and was set at liberty, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 YLR 2443 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution evidence was consistent, unbiased and confidence-inspiring, and had come from a source which was quite independent---
Complainant/Investigating Officer and recovery witness, corroborated each other on salient features; and their statements not only seemed to be natural, but were trustworthy---Recovery of heavy quantity of contraband heroin, could not be rebutted by accused---Narcotics valuing crores of rupees, could not be termed to have been planted by Government Officials from their own pocket---Recovery of narcotics having been established, and the reports of Chemical Examiner in that regard being positive, Trial Court was justified in convicting accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1633 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAKOOR
Side Opponent : State
S. 9---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 4 & 5---Sending narcotic substance to laboratory---Non-compliance of rules---Effect---Provisions of Rules 4 & 5 of Government Analyst Rules, 2000, are directory in nature and in some particular circumstances and in so far as accused is not specifically caused prejudice, non-compliance of Rules 4 and 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyts) Rules, 2001, does not vitiate trial at all.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1633 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAKOOR
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 29---Narcotic substance, recovery of---Appreciation of evidence---Conscious knowledge---Proof---
Shifting of onus to prove---Charas Garda weighing 159.2 kilogram was recovered from secret cavities of car in use of both the accused persons---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment forlife---Validity---Both the accused were in the exclusive possession of car, whereof narcotic drugs were
recovered, presumption to be that the narcotics concealed in secret cavities of the car was in their knowledge and as such both the accused were said to be in conscious possession of narcotics, otherwise they must prove that they were ignorant of contraband---High Court did not find any infirmity in judgment passed by Trial Court resultantly conviction and sentence was maintained---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Name : 2013 YLR 1667 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SAJJAD AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
Ss.9(c) & 29---Recovery of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Defence plea---False implication---Onus toprove---Accused were driver and co-driver of truck, out of which Charas and opium weighing 278 kilograms wasrecovered---Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life---Plea raised by accused was that they were falsely implicated---Validity---Narration given by all prosecution witnesses remained consistent and confidence inspiring---Question of false implication was too remote a possibility---
Accused in a futile attempt tried to make out a case by saying that nothing was recovered from the truck driven by them or they did not know about presence of contraband in truck in question and they had been falsely charged in the case---Accused, neither opted to produce defence witness nor desired to depose on oath in support of their contentions which fact too proved their guilt---Charge against accused was proved beyond any shadow of doubt and Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused---Findings of Trial Court were free from any infirmity and were not open to any interference---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 MLD 1299 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD TAHIR NAWAZ
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(b) & 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Conversion of sentence from Ss.9(c) to 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Separate sample from each recovered packet not sent---Effect---
Only that quantity of recovered narcotic to be considered against the accused from which sample taken andtested---Twenty packets of heroin, weighing 3.9 kilograms were recovered from the accused---Trial Court convicted the accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Contention of accused was that only three samples of 10 grams each, from three packets were sent for Chemical Examination; that if the total weight of 20 packets (3.9 kilograms) recovered from him was divided into equal weights of 20 packets, the weight of each packet was about 200 grams, and since samples were sent from only three packets, therefore, total weight of recovered heroin should be considered as 600 grams; that in such circumstances offence fell under S. 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and not under S. 9(c) of the Act---Validity---Admittedly only three samples (10 grams each) from three packets, each packet weighing 200 grams, were taken and sent for chemical examination---Such fact was also verified from the Chemical Examination report---Contention of accused regarding conversion of his sentence from Ss.9(c) to 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 , in circumstances of the case, appeared to becorrect---Accused had already undergone a substantial sentence of imprisonment of about four years and he had shown repentance and promised not to repeat similar offence in future---Accused was also willing to pay the fine of Rs.100,000 imposed upon him by the Trial Court---
Conviction recorded by Trial Court under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was converted into S.9(b) of the Act---Accused was sentenced for a period already undergone by him with a fine of Rs.100,000---
Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1840 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SHAHID
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Bail, grantof---For the purpose of bail in such like offences, the quantity of contraband and the expected quantity of punishment, which was to be awarded at the conclusion of trial, was to be taken into account while allowing bail toaccused---In the present case, in view of the quantity of narcotic recovered, there was no possibility of awarding maximum punishment provided under sub-clause (c) of S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Investigationagainst accused was complete and he was no more required for any further investigation-- -Accused was neither a previous convict nor involved in such like offences---Keeping accused behind the bars, would serve no useful purpose to prosecution, in circumstances---Accused was admitted to bail.
Citation Name : 2013 SCMR 1538 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : NADEEM ASHRAF
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(a) & 9(c)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Possession of narcotic--- Bail, refusal of--- Narcotic contained in different packets/ parcels mixed together before being sent for chemical analysis---Allegation against accused was that he had booked cartons for cargo, and upon search of said cartons heroin weighing 945 grams was recovered from 26 elevators and 420 grams of heroin was recovered from the other 10 elevators---Pleas of accused were that entire heroin recovered from 26 elevators was mixed together and only 10 grams were sent for chemical analysis; that heroin recovered from other 10 elevators was also mixed together and only 10 grams was sent for chemical analysis; that in such circumstances the total heroin which was sent and tested by the chemical examiner would come only to 78.34 grams and he could only be convicted for the heroin which was sent and tested for analysis in view of the law laid down in the case of Ameer Zeb v. State (PLD 2012 SC 380); that offence against him in such circumstances would fall within the mischief of S. 9(a) and not S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Validity---
Judgment to which reference was made by accused i.e. Ameer Zeb v. State (PLD 2012 SC 380) was a criminal appeal, wherein the entire evidence had been led---Trial in the present case was yet to commence and it would be presumptuous on part of the accused to infer that the prosecution would lead evidence only to the extent of the weight to which he had made reference---Prosecution was free to lead further evidence in the present case and to request the court that it be allowed to send the entire narcotics allegedly recovered from the accused for chemical analysis---Accused was refused bail in circumstances---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : HAFTAY KHAN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Recovery of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---
Recovery proceedings---Police witnesses---Charas weighing 20 kilogram was recovered from truck being driven by accused and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life---Plea raised by accused was that during recovery proceedings, no witness from public was associated and only police officials were witnesses---Validity---Non-compliance of S.103, Cr.P.C. could not be considered as strong ground for holding that trial of accused was bad in the eye of law---Police officials were competent witnesses and their statement could not be discarded merely for the reason that they belonged to police department---Accused was involved in the offence and conclusion drawn and reasons advanced by Trial Court showed fair evaluation of evidence which was in accordance with settled principles of criminal justice---High Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in judgment warranting interference, and sentence was maintained--- Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1895 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MAQBALI KHAN
Side Opponent : State
S.9(c)---Recovery of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Fake recovery, planting of---Consciousknowledge---Proof---Accused was driver of the vehicle from which Charas weighing 72 kilogram was recovered from secret cavities---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for seven years---
Plea raised by accused was that prosecution did not prove conscious knowledge of accused regarding presence of Charas in the vehicle--- Validity--- Samples, from recovered narcotics, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and report received therefrom was in positive---Nothing was brought on record to prove that recovered contraband was planted against accused---Such huge quantity worth lacs of rupees could not be planted by police at its own, in absence of any enmity or ulterior motive against accused---
No evidence was available to prove that prosecution witnesses had any previous enmity or grudge with accused to falsely implicate him in the case---Accused at the relevant time was driving motor car in question and was incharge of the same which was under his control and possession---Whatever articles were lying in vehicle were under his control and huge quantity of narcotics had been recovered from secret cavities of his car for which no other person could be held responsible, except the accused, who was incharge of the vehicle which he was driving---No misreading and non-reading of evidence or any infirmity in judgment was noticed which could warrant interference of High Court in its appellate jurisdiction---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 YLR 2051 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Samples, were sent to Chemical Examiner, the very next day of occurrence, and report of Chemical Examiner was in positive---Both prosecution witnesses, were put to the test of lengthy cross-examination, but their testimony qua the date of incident, quantity of charas and place of incident could not be shattered---Contradictions, allegedly pointed out by counsel for accused, were minor in nature and would not be fatal to the prosecution case---Accused was
apprehended while holding the plastic bag containing contraband charas intending thereby to transport the same to another place---No reason or ground was available to show that accused was not in knowledge of substance lying in his bag---Accused was proved to be taking away the contraband with pre-planning---
Prosecution had also proved departure and arrival of the complainant party by producing entries---Accusedalso failed to show any enmity or ill-will against the complainant and mashir causing them to depose against him falsely---Foisting of such a huge quantity of contraband charas upon accused was not possible---TrialCourt, in circumstances did not commit any illegality while awarding sentence to accused, against whom sufficient evidence was on record to prove charge under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997---No ground being available to interfere in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, appeal against said judgment was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1597 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : WAJID ALI
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.243 & 412---Possessing and trafficking narcotic---Appreciation ofevidence---Right of appeal of accused who pleaded guilty---Accused pleaded guilty and the Trial Court recorded confessional statement of accused---Record had clearly revealed that accused was intimated about the charge and consequences of confession---Show-cause notice was given to accused under S.243, Cr.P.C.---
Accused remained consistent with confessional statement---Trial Court, after fulfilling codal formalities, recorded confessional statement of accused and certified that same was true and voluntary---Accused had made his confessional statement voluntarily, and it did not suffer from any defect of form or substance---
Retraction of confession was not enough to make it involuntary, or diminished its intrinsic value---By virtue of provision of S.412, Cr.P.C., accused who pleaded guilty to the charge, had no right of appeal against his conviction, but could maintain an appeal only to the extent of the legality of the sentence passed against him by the Trial Court---TrialCourt while convicting accused kept into the consideration settled law---Conviction of accused recorded by the Trial Court was not open to any legitimate exception---Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was maintained and appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1642 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD YOUSIF
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 6 & 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Possession and control over narcotic---Scope---Vehicle being driven by accused was stopped at a check-post and 40 bundles of charas weighing 40 kilograms were recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle---Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Validity---When accused was driving the vehicle, he was incharge of the same, therefore narcotic would be under his control and possession, especially when he had started a long journey alone in the vehicle from which recovery was effected---Person in charge of a vehicle on a long journey, would draw the presumption against him that narcotic substance available in secret cavities of such a vehicle was in hisknowledge---None of the prosecution witnesses had any enmity with the accused nor was it ever suggested that there was any reason to falsely implicate the accused by foisting a huge quantity of narcotic upon him---Evidence of prosecution witnesses remained consistent on all material particulars despite lengthy cross-examination---Accordingto report of Chemical Examiner 40 packets, each containing 9 black rods wrapped in plastic pane were sent to the Laboratory for examination on the same day of the incident and also reached the Laboratory on the same day---Appealwas dismissed in circumstances.
2013 YLR 2443 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Sentence, reduction in---Accused required to be dealt with iron hands as he was involved in a narcotic business, which was creating bad name for Pakistan in the international community as a whole---Certain aspects in the case would help in determining of quantum of sentence; whole narcotic substance i.e. heroin in the case was recovered from co-accused; occurrence was stated to have taken place on 25-3-2005, but date in recovery memo was mentioned as 28-3-2008; Report of Chemical Examiner had not been signed by the Chemical Examiner; co-accused from whom heavy quantity of contraband heroin was recovered, made confession during the course of trial, and Trial Court while extending extraordinary politeness reduced his sentence to that already undergone by him; accused was not previously involved in any other criminal case; it could safely be said that accused was first offender---Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, provided both death sentence, as well as imprisonment for life, to meet the ends of justice it would be justified, if the sentence of death was converted into imprisonment forlife---Sentence of death was modified into imprisonment for life and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., was also extended to the accused.
Citation Name : 2013 PLD 586 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ASIF
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was allegedly apprehended on basis of prior information and 11 kilograms of chars was recovered from the back seat of the vehicle, wherein accused was sitting---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Accused contended that according to F.I.R. recovery was effected from the back seat of the vehicle but according to the charge framed recovery was effected from the dashboard of the vehicle; that complainant (police official) had investigated the case himself; that samples were sent to chemical examiner after a delay, and that no private persons were engaged to witness the recovery proceedings---Validity---Defect in framing of charge was not of such nature that would vitiate the entire proceedings---Evidence adduced did not contain any material contradictions about the material aspects of the case---Since there was no objection from the accused that contraband was unsealed or tampered with or manipulated, therefore delay in sending the same for examination would not affect the result of analysis---
Report of chemical examiner was in positive and defence had neither disputed nature of substance nor challenged the authenticity of the report of chemical analyst---Although no private person had been associated to witness recovery proceedings, but compliance with provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. was excluded in narcotics cases by virtue of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Prosecution had produced tangible and trust-worthy ocular and circumstantial evidence against the accused to connect him with the commission of the offence---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1837 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD SALEEM
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 29(d)---Smuggling of narcotics---Possession of illicit articles, presumption---Appreciation of evidence---Accused who were travelling in Bus, were arrested and in their presence and pointation, huge quantity of narcotics was recovered---Boxes containing narcotics were lying on the roof of the Bus and all accused had knowledge about the same---One of accused was owner, others were driver, second driver and conductor of the Bus, and one of them was sitting in the Bus on whose pointation the narcotics were recovered---
Contentions were that a driver and conductor could not be held responsible for transporting contraband articles and that at best their responsibility would start only when the contraband items had been recovered from the designed cavities of the bus---Validity---Under provisions of S.29(d) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, unless otherwise proved, presumption would be that accused had committed an offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in respect of any material which had undergone any process towards the production or manufacture of narcotics---Presence of accused persons being owner, driver, second driver and conductor of the Bus was not denied; they were arrested from the spot in presence ofMashirs---Recovered articles were lying openly in boxes on the roof of the Bus, same would be in the knowledge of accused persons- --Accused, in circumstances were equally responsible for the transportation of said narcotic substance and in circumstances could not be absolved from the responsibility.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1837 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD SALEEM
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Smuggling of narcotics---Non-association of private Mashir, effect---Appreciation of evidence---No infirmity was found in the evidence of the complainant---
Prosecution witness had fully supported the prosecution case, and did not commit any error in connection with the arrest of accused persons---Recovery of narcotics was effected on the pointation ofaccused---Evidence of prosecution witnesses could not be shattered in lengthy cross-examination and they remained in line with each other---No infirmity or omission existed in the deposition of the witnesses and no contradiction had been pin- pointed in their evidence---Though huge quantity of narcotic substance was involved in the case, but the complainant and prosecution witness did not differ or contradict each other in respect of the number of packets, weight of the narcotic, as well as the manner in which the same wererecovered---Counsel for accused persons could not prove any enmity or ill-will against the prosecution witnesses to have deposed against accused persons falsely---Mashirnama was prepared at the time of recovery, which was verified by the prosecution witness to be true---Associating the private mashir was not necessary, as S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Oculartestimony had duly been corroborated by the mashirnama of arrest and recovery prepared at the spot in presence of Mashirs---Huge quantity of narcotic substance was involved in the case, and in view of strong evidence available against accused persons, they were rightly convicted and sentenced; and question of reduction of sentence, did not arise.
Citation Name : 2013 MLD 1860 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : Mst. NAZO
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Bail, refusal of---
Pregnant female accused with sucking baby---Accused-lady while travelling in a car was stopped at a police checkpoint and upon her search five kilograms of charas was found tied with the string of her trouser---Plea of accused was that she was mother of a suckling baby and was also four months' pregnant---Validity---Accused was stopped at a police checkpoint and searched by a lady constable---Report of samples sent to Forensic Science Laboratory was inpositive---Nothing was available on record to show that witnesses had any mala fide or ulterior motives to falsely implicate the accused---Had the accused been concerned about her suckling baby, she would not have resorted to indulge in such activity which had afflicted the whole society and especially the younger generation---Prima facie accused was connected with the commission of the offence---High Court observed that off late narcotic mafia had devised new modes and means of smuggling narcotics by employing ladies and youngster in the hope that even if they got caught red-handed, they might be extended concession of bail by the courts on grounds of womanhood or juvenility and that such conduct amounted to taking liberty with the law of the land---Bail petition was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2013 MLD 1822 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : ABDUL HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Grant of probation to accused for good conduct---
Contraband had been recovered from the direct possession of the accused and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was positive---Seizing Officer and author of the murasila reiterated his version set forth by him in his murasila report---Marginal witness of recovery memo had supported the version of Seizing Officer and testified that said memo bore his signature and had established his presence on the spot---Seizing Officer and marginal witness of recovery memo were consistent on each and every material particular of the occurrence---
Opportunity of cross-examination had been provided but nothing could be extracted which could be beneficial for thedefence---No malice, ill-will or enmity was attributed to the prosecution witnesses---Mere fact that the prosecution witnesses were police officials would not be sufficient to discard their confidence inspiring and trustworthytestimony---Police witnesses were also as good witness like others and their testimony could be relied upon unless and until any ill-will or enmity on their part towards the accused was proved---Nothing was on record to prove previous involvement or conviction of the accused in such like cases who was of advance age of 49/50 years---Accusedbeing first offender was released on bail on existing bail bonds and was placed on probation for good conduct for the period of his sentence i.e. 3 years as a rigorous imprisonment.
Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1617 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD SADIQ
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9(c)---Possession and trafficking ofnarcotic---Bail, refusal of---Accused driving the vehicle alone---Control and possession over recovered narcotic---Scope---Mixing the recovered narcotic before sending samples--- Scope--- Accused was apprehended at a police barricade and upon search of his vehicle, 14 packets containing a total of 14 kilograms charas were allegedly recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle---Contentions of accused were that packets of alleged narcotic were initially mixed together and then three samples weighing 10 grams each were sent for chemical analysis, therefore, samples sent did not represent the whole recovered consignment; that narcotic was not recovered from his personal possession but from secret cavities of the vehicle, hence he had no conscious knowledge about it, and that trial had commenced and he was no more required for further investigation---Validity---Accused was driving the car alone and was in charge of it, therefore, same was under his control and possession---Articles lying in the vehicle , in such circumstances, would also be under his control and possession---Some quantity of narcotic was separated from each of the 14 packets and then mixed up, wherefrom three samples of 10 grams each were prepared and only sample of 10 grams was sent for chemical analysis, which denoted that sample sent for analysis represented the whole lot of 14packets---Challan was complete and trial had commenced---Bail petition of accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1683 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : ABDUR RAHIM alias RAHIMAY
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c), 34 & 35---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Contention of counsel for accused was that as the contraband was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory beyond stipulated period of 72 hours, it had made the report of Forensic Science Laboratory illegal and rendered the seizure invalid in the eye of law as provided in Rule 4 or 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Validity---Said Rules never placed any bar on the Investigating Officer to send the sample beyond seventy two hours of the seizure or receive the Forensic Science Laboratory's report after fifteen days---Delay otherwise in sending the incriminating articles to concerned quarter for expert opinion, could not be treated as fatal to the prosecution case, nor it would vanish the evidentiary values of such a report---ForensicScience Laboratory's Report had been signed by Chemical Examiner as well as by Chemical Expert, who were authorized officers in that respect under Ss.34 & 35 of
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Objection of accused that report was signed by Assistant Chemical Examiner, was repelled as any report submitted by duly Notified Assistant Chemical Examiner was a report of Government Analyst within the meaning of Ss.34 & 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and was admissible in evidence---Objection on admissibility of Forensic Science Laboratory's Report, as far as non- presence ornon-availability of embossing marks was concerned, recovery of contraband could not be negated on merenon-presence of embossing marks on the Forensic Science Laboratory's Report, as nowhere was provided in Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 that such like report would have any embossing marks---
No such rule had been framed so far---Recovery of huge quantity of narcotic from accused had been proved by the raiding party, who had no personal reasons to involve accused in the false case---Admission of accused that he dealt with business of narcotic, but he repented his ways, also supported the prosecution case without reasonable doubt---Legal sentence awarded to accused, did not require any interference by High Court, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1502 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : ALI AHMED KHAKHRANI
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Bail, refusal of---
Recovery of large quantity of narcotic---Foisting of narcotic upon accused not probable---Effect---Duringpatrolling duty, police conducted personal search of accused and allegedly recovered 3000 grams of charas from his possession---Apparently such huge quantity of charas could not be foisted upon the accused---
Although private persons were not associated to act as mashirs, but such aspect of the case required deeper appreciation of evidence, which was not possible at bail stage---Report of Chemical Examiner was in positive---
Offence alleged was punishable with death or life imprisonment---Bail application of accused was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 MLD 1078 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SAIF-UL-ABBAS
Side Opponent : State
Ss.9(c) & 29---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342---Recovery of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---
Defence plea---False implication---Onus to prove---Accused was driving car out of which Charas weighing 185 kilograms was recovered---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life---
Accused raised the plea that he was falsely implicated---Validity---Nothing was available on record to show that quantity of substance recovered was exaggerated or that all packets recovered from vehicle were not proved to have been of substance other than narcotics---Discrepancies or contradictions, if any, in statements of prosecution witnesses, highlighted by accused were not of a nature as could negate recovery resulting into dislodging entire prosecution version---Absence of any motive on the part of prosecution witnesses would further negate possibility of false implication---Onus to prove defence plea, under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was on the accused to have led evidence in support of his innocence regarding lack of knowledge that he was ignorant about presence of any narcotics in vehicle in question and to such effect his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. could be quoted wherein he refused to produce any defence evidence in support of his innocence---Accused being driver of motor car in question was presumed to be in control of the vehicle about which he had complete knowledge even presence of anything in it---Question of ignorance regarding presence of any contraband in the vehicle did notarise---Charge against accused was proved beyond any shadow of doubt and Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced him---Findings of Trial Court were free from any infirmity and were not open to any interference---Appealwas dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 915 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : ALI MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : State
S. 9---Narcotics recovered during a raid---Officials of Anti-Narcotics Force, evidence of---Scope---Whereofficials of Anti-Narcotics Force were members of the raiding party, their testimony could not be discarded merely on the ground that they were employees of Anti-Narcotics Force.
Citation Name : 2013 MLD 133 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : KHALID KHAN
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Bail, refusal of---
Conscious knowledge of narcotic---Scope---Accused, who was driver of the vehicle in question, was stopped at police checkpoint and upon search, 20 kilograms of charas was recovered from specially designed secret cavities in the vehicle---Accused was the only person present in the vehicle and was also driving the same---
Accused being driver of the vehicle was required to know each and everything about the vehicle as he was solely in-charge of it---Available material indicated that accused had conscious knowledge about presence of
narcotics in the vehicle---Alleged offence was punishable with either death or anything not less than life imprisonment, therefore, it was covered by the restrictive (prohibitory) clause of S.497, Cr.P.C---Challan was complete and was likely to be submitted in Trial Court shortly---Bail petition of accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
2013 PLD 23 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : GUL KHAN
Side Opponent : S.H.O. POLICE STATION ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE, PESHAWAR
Ss. 9(c), 46 & 48---Anti-Narcotics Force Act, (III of 1997), S.5---Frontier Crimes Regulations, 1901, S. 11---
Notification 4-4/98-ANF, dated 6-12-2010---Recovery of narcotics---Forum of trial---Political Agent/Council ofElders---Powers---Scope---Power and jurisdiction of Sessions Judge have been invested on Political Agent, while exercising powers under Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, therefore, in view of notification, including two enactments i.e. Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Anti-Narcotics Force Act, 1997 and in view of Second Schedule of Frontier Crimes Regulations as well as necessary corollary and unavoidable implications, District Magistrate / Political Agent has to exercise powers of a Sessions Judge in offences under the provision of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and role of Council of Elders to which a reference is made under the provisions of S.11 of Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, has become either redundant or has been narrowed in its scope and application.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 557 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SAJJAD
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 4 & 5---Possession and trafficking ofnarcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were apprehended at a police picket on the basis of secret information and 175 kilograms of charas pukhta was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle he was driving---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Validity---Accused was driving the vehicle in question and was arrested on the spot---F.I.R. was promptly lodged---Complainant (police official) was put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing favourable to the defence was unearthed---Statement of complainant was in full consonance with the facts and contents of the F.I.R. and recovery memo---Minorcontradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses (police officials) were not sufficient to vitiate the prosecution case or make recovery doubtful---Forensic Science Report confirmed that all samples sent were charas---Mere delay in sending samples to Forensic Science Laboratory was not fatal to the prosecution case because Rules 4 and 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 placed no bar on the investigation officer to send the samples beyond the 72 hours of seizure or recovery of contraband---Recovery of huge quantity of charas from secret cavities of vehicle had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was dismissed and conviction of accused was maintained.
Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 454 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SAEED NAWAZ
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Possession and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant, Police Officer, who admitted the arrest of accused persons on the spot, was put to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing favourable to the defence was unearthed---Complainant who made his statement fully in consonance with the facts and contents of the F.I.R. and recovery memo, had established the prosecution case up to the hilt---Arrest of accused on the spot and recovery of narcotic substances from secret cavities of the vehicle being driven by accused, could not be denied orrebutted---Except for the minor contradiction about the number of packets of the recovered contrabands, nothing favourable to accused could be brought on record, in the shape of evidence of the prosecution witnesses---Saidcontradiction was not of a serious nature, and same could not be considered to be fatal and sufficient to vitiate the recovery proceedings, or to make the recovery doubtful---
Prosecution witness had stated that the recovery was effected in his presence from the secret cavities of thevehicle---Rest of the witnesses had confirmed their respective roles as assigned to them by the prosecution---
Report of Forensic Science Laboratory had confirmed that the contraband recovered from accused, was actuallycharas---Delay in sending the samples to the Laboratory had fully been explained---No material inconsistency or discrepancy, was found in the statements of prosecution witnesses---Recovery of huge quantity of charas from the secret cavities of the seized vehicle had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt- --Record also proved that at the time of arrest, accused was driving the vehicle and co-accused was sitting in the front seat of said vehicle---Positivereport of Laboratory supported the prosecution version and the prosecution on the strength of unimpeachable and consistent evidence had succeeded in bringing home the charge against accused beyond any shadow of reasonabledoubt---All the witnesses of the prosecution, who had witnessed the recovery of the contraband from the vehicle, had remained consistent---Trial Court had rightly rejected defence version of accused persons regarding minor contradiction about the number of packets of the contraband---Prosecution had successfully established its case through confidence-inspiring evidence of
eye-witnesses recorded before the Trial Court, which was not at all shattered by the defence, during cross-examination---Well-founded, well-reasoned order of the Trial Court, needed no interference by High Court.