Section 2 : Definitions
2023 SCMR 1791 SUPREME-COURT
BARKHURDAR VS State
Ss. 2(t) & 9(c)—Possession and transportation of 10 kilograms of poppy plants—Reappraisal of evidence—Poppy plant, characteristics of—Poppy seeds—There is nothing in evidence as to what actually was recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused; was it only the doda/basket/pouch or it was the whole plant with stems and flowers—In common parlance, often stems and leaves of the poppy plants are used as animal food—Poppy straw is derived from the plant Papaver somniferum, which has medicinal impact as well, and is largely used as a tonic for wellness of nervous system—Purpose of its cultivation is actually the production of poppy seeds, and the latter is used as a food stuff and as a raw material for manufacturing poppy-seed oil, which is used for making various varnishes, paints and soaps etc.—Therefore, every cultivation of poppy straw unless it is proved that it is made for the sole purpose of extracting narcotics after a proper method cannot be considered a criminal act—It has also not been brought on record as to whether from the ten kilograms of the recovered poppy plant, how much quantity was sack/pouch/doda as it is only the sack/pouch/doda which contains narcotic substance—Therefore, in absence of such report, it is difficult to determine as to whether the case against the petitioner falls within the purview of section 9(a), 9(b) or 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case are sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case, which entitles the petitioner to the right of benefit of the doubt—Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt—Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and petitioner was acquitted of the charge.
2022 SCMR 1375 SUPREME-COURT
ZAFAR IQBAL VS State
Ss. 2(t) & 9—Poppy plant, characteristics of—Poast—Poppy seeds—Only sack/pouch/basket of the whole poppy plant, is called poast and the same is the only part of the poppy plant excluding its seeds, which contains morphine—In common parlance, it has been seen that often that stems and leaves of the poppy plants are used as animal food—Poppy straw is derived from the plant ‘Papaver somniferum’, which has been cultivated in many countries of Europe and Asia for centuries; this has medicinal impact as well, which is largely used as a tonic for wellness of nervous system—Purpose of its cultivation was actually the production of poppy seeds, which are used as a food stuff and as a raw material for manufacturing poppy-seed oil, used for making various varnishes, paints and soaps etc.—Therefore, every cultivation of poppy straw unless it is proved that it is made for the sole purpose of extracting narcotics after a proper method cannot be considered a criminal act.
2022 SCMR 1375 SUPREME-COURT
ZAFAR IQBAL VS State
Ss. 2(t)(iii) & 9(c)— Possession and transportation of 1650 kilograms of poppy straw—Reappraisal of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Report of the Chemical Examiner failing to reveal percentage of morphine in the mixture and also as to what quantity of recovered whole poppy plants was sack/pouch/doda—In the FIR as well as in the recovery memo it had been mentioned that poast/poppy straw was recovered in plastic gunny bags but there is no mention that recovered items were got grinded or mixed and then sent to the Chemical Examiner—On the other hand, contents of the report of Chemical Examiner indicate that samples sent to it were in grinded form i.e. grinded material of black and yellow coloured straws, seeds and stalks, which means that whole poppy plant would have been recovered from the accused—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 PCrLJ 1492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHAHID VS State
Ss. 6, 2(s), 2(za) & 2(k)— Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001, R. 2(xxxvii) & Sched. V, Div. II—Prohibition of possession of narcotic drugs—Narcotic drug—Psychotropic substance—Controlled substance—Toxic chemical inhalants—Scope—Sulfuric acid does not come within the purview of narcotic drug as defined in S. 2(s)—Similarly, in reference to psychotropic substance as elaborated in S. 2(za), it is noticed that approximately 85 items are mentioned in the Schedule annexed with the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but sulfuric acid is not included therein—As regards, controlled substance it is defined in S. 2(k) as any substance which may be used for the purpose of production or manufacture of narcotic drugs and such definition has relevancy to the proposition under consideration—Since sulfuric acid is used for the manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance, thus it comes within the purview of controlled substance as defined in S. 2(k)—Sulfuric acid is also mentioned as controlled substance in Schedule V, Division II of Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulations of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001—Unlawful possession of sulfuric acid comes within the purview of S. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2022 PCrLJ 1492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHAHID VS State
Ss. 6, 2(s), 2(za) & 2(k)—Prohibition of possession of narcotic drugs— Narcotic drug— Psychotropic substance— Controlled substance—Scope—Embargo is imposed under S. 6 for manufacturing, extracting, preparing possessing, etc., the narcotic drug, psychotropic or controlled substance—So far as, the term “narcotic drug” is concerned, it is defined in S. 2(s) as coca leaf, cannabis heroin, opium, poppy straw and all manufactured drugs—Term “psychotropic substance” is defined in S. 2(za) as the substance specified in the Schedule to Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and such substances as the Federal Government may by notification in the official gazette declare to be a psychotropic substance—“Controlled substance”, in S. 2(k) is defined as any substance which may be used for the production or manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance—Section 6 also provides an exception and paves way for possessing these substances for the purposes of medical, scientific or industrial purposes but in the manner and subject to the conditions specified either under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, or through any other law for the time being in force.
2021 SCMR 531 SUPREME-COURT
ZULFIQAR alias ZULFA VS State
Ss. 2(t) & 9(c)—Possession of 15 kilograms of poast/opium—Reappraisal of evidence— Sentence, reduction in— Mitigating circumstances—Opium as a narcotic—Definition and nature—As per definition of opium in S. 2(t) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (‘the 1997 Act’) after mowing, all parts of the poppy plant except seeds were considered to be poppy straw—Only the basket, sack or pouch also known as ‘Doda’, excluding the seeds, contained narcotic substance—All poppy straw may not necessarily be `poast/doda because poppy straw could be any other part of the mowed poppy plant as well, excluding the seeds—Poppy straw was derived from the plant ‘papaver somniferum’, which had been cultivated in many countries for centuries; it had medicinal impact as well, which was largely used as a tonic for wellness of nervous system—Purpose of its cultivation was actually the production of poppy seeds, which were used as a food stuff and as a raw material for manufacturing poppy-seed oil, which was used for making various varnishes, paints and soaps etc.—Question was as to what actually was recovered from the accused in the present case; was it only the doda/basket/pouch or was it the whole plant with stems and flowers—Nothing in evidence was available on record in regard to such aspect, which absence was to be considered as a mitigating circumstance (in relation to sentence of accused)—Accused was behind bars for the last more than 13 years and his remaining sentence was less than two years—Conviction of accused under S. 9(c) of the 1997 Act was maintained, however his sentence was reduced from imprisonment for life into what he had already undergone—Jail petition was converted into appeal and partly allowed accordingly.
2021 PCrLJ 1882 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
DA YONG WU VS State
497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9, 6 & 2(za)—Recovery of ketamine—Psychotropic substance—Scope—Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 5100 grams of ketamine—Acceptance of post arrest bail was mainly urged on the ground that the recovered substance was neither declared narcotic drug nor psychotropic or controlled substance thus no case under S. 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 could be registered—Held; ketamine hydrochloride was declared as psychotropic substance hence was added at Sr. No. 39-A of the schedule annexed with Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vide SRO No. 446(I)/2020 dated 6.4.2020 issued by Government of Pakistan—Ketamine was generally used for medical purposes and even on occasions as an anesthesia medicine thus probably it was felt that it came within the exceptions mentioned in S. 6 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—As a necessary consequence, the SRO 446(I)/2020 was later withdrawn on 21.8.2020 and as a necessary corollary, the entry at Sr.No. 39-A in schedule of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was omitted—Recovery of ketamine could in no manner entail consequences of a criminal case registered under S. 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Petition for grant of bail was accepted, in circumstances.
2021 PCrLJ 1882 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
DA YONG WU VS State
Ss. 2(s), 2(k) & 2(za)—Controlled substance—Narcotic drug—Psychotropic substances—Scope—Terms Controlled Substance, Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances are defined in Ss. 2(s), 2(k) & 2(za) respectively of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—According to S. 2(k) Controlled substance means any substance which may be used for the production or manufacture of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance—Whereas, the term narcotic drug, according to S. 2(s), stands for coca leaf, cannabis, heroin, opium, poppy straws and all manufactured drugs—So far as the psychotropic substance is concerned, as per S. 2(za) it means the substances specified in the Sched. annexed with Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and such substances as the Federal Government may by notification in the official gazette declare to be the psychotropic substance.
2021 MLD 1664 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
State VS ZAHID LATIF
Ss. 9, 6, 2(s), 35, 36 & Sched.—Possession of narcotic substances / drugs—Psychotropic substance—Government Testing to determine nature of recovered substance—Report of analyst—Requisite protocols—Scope—Whatever name a substance was labelled as by a manufacturing company on the injection, tablets or syrup, was for purpose of trading and copyright protection, and could not eject such substance from definition of “psychotropic substance”—-Question as to whether material recovered from accused fell within definition of “psychotropic substance” was to be determined in accordance with Ss.35 & 36 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and report of analyst under the same, must contain all protocols of tests applied for examination of contrabands and application of such protocols was more essential when material recovered was “psychotropic substance” or controlled substance.
2019 PLD 669 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD NAEEM VS State
Ss. 2, 3 & 9(c)—Possession of narcotic—Liquid mixture—Percentage of narcotic, determination of—Requirement of calculating the percentage of narcotic drug in a liquid preparation or mixture was mandatory as per S. 3 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with the definitional test under S. 2 of the Act.
2018 PCrLJ 440 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
IFTIKHAR AHMAD VS State
497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 2(q)—Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001, Division II, Schedule V—Possession of narcotic drugs—Recovered contraband under the name of “Acetic Anhydride” fell within the ambit of “manufacture drug” as defined under S. 2(q) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as well as notified in the official gazette and Division II, Schedule V, Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001—Possession of recovered chemical “Acetic Anhydride” being a primary substance used for production of heroin was manifest contravention of the provisions of S. 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused was arrested red-handed on the spot and huge quantity of “Acetic Anhydride” was recovered from boot of car which was in his exclusive possession and control—Positive Forensic Science Laboratory report and statements of recovery witness under S. 161, Cr.P.C. had substantiated the version of complainant—Nothing was on record to show any ill-will or enmity of the prosecution witnesses against accused—On tentative assessment of evidence, reasonable grounds existed which prima facie connect accused with commission of offence—Bail was refused accordingly.
2018 MLD 1416 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ZAFAR VS State
497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997),Ss. 9(c) & 2(d)(ii)—Prohibition ( Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.4—Possession of narcotic substance weighing 3 kilograms—Bail, grant of—Recovery of “Bhang”—Recovery of “Bhang” from the accused, was without specifying parts thereof—Trial Court would determine as to whether the case against the accused fell within ambit of S. 2(d)(ii) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 or under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979—-Accused was first offender having no criminal antecedents and was behind the bars for the last about one month—Investigation of the case was complete and person of the accused was no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation—Conclusion of trial was not in sight, therefore, further detention of accused in jail would serve no useful purpose—Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
2017 SCMR 1993 SUPREME-COURT
State VS MUHAMMAD SARWAR
497(5)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 2(d)(ii)—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 4— Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)—Possession of narcotic—Petition for cancellation of bail, dismissal of—Accused persons had been admitted to post-arrest bail by the High Court mainly because it was yet to be determined as to whether the offence allegedly committed by them attracted the provisions of S. 2(d)(ii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 or those of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979—Supreme Court declined to attend to such aspect of the case at present stage and held, that no allegation had been levelled against the accused persons regarding misuse or abuse of the concession of bail—Investigation of the case had already been finalized and physical custody of the accused persons was no longer required at present stage for the purposes of investigation—No occasion had been found to interference in the bail granting order of the High Court—Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2017 PCrLJN 204 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD JAVED VS State
497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.2(d) & 9(c)—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Contents of the FIR, as well as the report of the Chemical Examiner, did not reveal that when alleged substance was recovered, was containing flowers or fruiting top and it was nowhere mentioned that the cannabis plant (Bhung) was with seeds or not, which was against the provisions of S.2(d) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Whether the contraband was a simple plant or not, was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence—Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, prima facie, would favour the accused—Contraband recovered, neither was described in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, nor in the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979—Case of accused would become one of further inquiry, entitling him for the grant of post-arrest bail—Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.
2016 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT
TAIMOOR KHAN VS State
2(t)—‘Opium’ or ‘opium derivatives’—Process by which consumable opium was derived from opium poppies stated.
2016 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT
TAIMOOR KHAN VS State
2(t)—Dried/baked ‘opium’—Two groups of Alkaloids found in dried opium—Morphine, codeine and thebaine (first group)—Isoquinolines, such as papaverine and Noscapine (second group)—Details of two groups of alkaloids found in dried opium and their use in manufacturing narcotic drugs stated.
2016 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT
TAIMOOR KHAN VS State
Ss. 2(t), 2(w) & 2(x)—“Poppy straw”, definition of—Definition of “poppy straw” (as it presently stood) under S. 2(t) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was misleading being vague and absurd—Government and the Legislature may take guidance from the international conventions and expert research opinions to amend definition clauses in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 clearly drawing a distinction between “pure opium”, “pods” and “straws” including the latex of the poppy plants to categorize which one was potential narcotic substance and which did not cause intoxication. [Minority view]
2016 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT
TAIMOOR KHAN VS State
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 PLD 378 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MOMIN KHAN VS State
2(s)—Warcotic drug’—Scope—No bifurcation or specification existed in Control of Narcotic Substances Act. 1997 in respect of narcotics as to Charas or Heroin.
2015 PCrLJ 974 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL VS State
Preamble, Ss. 2(k)(s)(za), 9(c) & 16—Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), Ss.23 & 28—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.221—Possessing or trafficking narcotics—Recovery of alcohol, beer and acid—Framing of charge—Alcohol, beer and acid, were recovered from the vehicle and FIR under Ss.23 & 28 of the Drugs Act, 1976 was lodged against accused—Application of accused filed under S.221, Cr.P.C. for framing charge under S.16 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, having been rejected by the Trial Court—Validity—Recovered liquid, which had been identified as ‘Hydrochloride Acid (HCL)’, used as chemical regent in laboratory experiments, did not fall within the definitions of “controlled substance”, “narcotic drug” and “Psychotropic substance” as provided in S.2(k)(s)(za) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Recovered liquid not falling within the mischief of S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, nor coming under any definition of the contraband item/substance, order passed by the Trial Court/Special Court, whereby application of accused filed under S.221, Cr.P.C. was rejected, was set aside—Trial Court was directed to alter the charge and to frame the same for an offence punishable under S.16 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, thereafter to proceed with the case strictly in accordance with law.
2012 MLD 770 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. NASREEN BIBI VS State
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—Requirement to obtain search warrant could be dispensed with where a quick action was required to be taken—Delay in sending the recovered narcotic substance to Chemical Examiner for analysis could not be fatal in the absence of an objection regarding the same having been tampered with—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—Both the recovery witnesses were consistent on the point of time, date and place of raid, search, recovery of “post” from the accused, preparation of sample and its dispatch to the Office of Chemical Examiner—Investigating Officer had clarified that persons present at the place of recovery had refused to become witnesses in the case—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.
2011 SCMR 1954 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS State
2(t)(i)—“Opium”—Meaning—Poppy straw—Definition of “Opium” under S. 2(t)(i) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has been enlarged to include all parts of poppy plant, that is to say, stalk, leaves, flowers in addition to poppy capsules—Poppy straw cannot be excluded from the definition of “opium”.
2011 YLR 1692 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAFAR IQBAL VS State
Ss.9(c) & 2(s), (t), (v) & (w)—Possessing narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Counsel for the accused after having argued the case for his acquittal had confined himself for reduction in sentence of accused in view of the report of the Chemical Examiner—Twenty K.G. Poppy Heads had been recovered from the possession of accused—Sample of ten grams of the substance sent to the Chemical Examiner was found to be “Crushed poppy heads” which could be used to cause intoxication, as the same had traces of Morphine and Codeine—Under S.2(s) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, ‘narcotic drug’ meant Coca Leaf, Cannabis, heroin, opium, poppy straw and all manufactured drugs—Poppy straws were also included in the definition of ‘opium’ as provided under S.2(t)(i) of the said Act—Under S.2(w) ‘poppy straw’ were shown all parts except seeds of opium poppy after mowing—Poppy heads or poppy straw thus were narcotic drug and offences relating to them were punishable under the Act—However, poppy heads having traces of Morphine and Codeine, recovered from the accused, could not be equated with the actual substance popularly known as “Opium” or “heroin” etc. which contained much higher quantity of Morphine—Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to accused were consequently maintained, but his sentence of fine was reduced from Rupees 2,00,000 to Rs. 50,000 only in circumstances.
2011 PCrLJ 1953 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GADA ALI VS State
497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 2(c), 20, 21 & 51(2)—Possession of narcotics—Bail, refusal of—Accused according to the F.I.R. was found to be in possession of contraband “charas”, if not in his own capacity, at least in the capacity of an “associate” within the meaning of S.2(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Contention that the premises from where the “charas” was recovered and seized did not belong to accused could not be looked into at the bail stage, particularly when the burden lay on the accused to prove that the said premises did not belong to him—Matter being that of urgency, dispensing of obtaining the warrants was justified, otherwise the attempt to raid would have been failed and the chance of recovery of huge amount of “charas” could have been totally lost—Sections 20 and 21 of the Act being not mandatory and only directory in nature, strict non-adherence thereof was not fatal and the raid was not illegal—Police employees were competent like any other independent witnesses and their testimony could not be disregarded merely on the ground of their being such employees—Huge quantity of contraband “charas” weighing 379.5 kilograms being involved in the case, the same was not a fit case for grant of bail to accused, as mentioned in S.51(2) of the Act—Accused had been apprehended on the spot with a big quantity of “charas”—Bail was declined to accused in circumstances.
2009 YLR 1632 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS State
Ss.2(s)(t) & 9(c)—Appreciation of evidence—475 kilograms Poppy straw containing Poppy seeds were recovered from the possession of accused who was responsible for the same—Poppy straw was part of opium—Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 would come into play in circumstances, with regard to possession of narcotic drug psychotropic substance or controlled substances—Accused having rightly been convicted and sentenced, his appeal was dismissed.
2009 YLR 2277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NASIR KHAN VS State
Ss.2(g), (h), (t), (u) & 3—Appreciation of evidence—Application for determination of percentage of opium alkaloids—Dismissal of application—Appeal—More than 8000 unlabelled intoxicating/sedative injections were recovered at the instance and from the possession of accused—According to the report of Chemical Examiner, said injections contained opium alkaloids, but the Chemical Examiner had failed to give the percentage of the opium alkaloids, which was found to be the component of the recovered material—According to S.3 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Federal Government was required to make rules prescribing the method with which the percentage of liquid preparations could be calculated for the purpose of clauses (g) (h) (t) & (u) of S.2 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Provisions of S.3 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had provided that in case of recovery of any material defined under clauses (g) (h) & (u) of S.2 of said Act percentage till the framing of the rules by the Government would be determined in accordance with the Proviso to S.3 of said Act—In the present case while examining the recovered material, Chemical Examiner failed to give percentage of opium alkaloids, which according to him were detected in the recovered injections—Chemical Examiner who was under a legal obligation to find ,out the percentage of the detected opium alkaloids, having failed to do so, appeal against order of Special Court whereby the application filed by the applicant for the determination of the percentage of opium alkaloids from the material allegedly recovered from the applicant was dismissed, was set aside and application of applicant before the Trial Court was allowed.
2008 YLR 1784 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MASUD AHMAD VS State
497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.2(t)(iii) & 9—Bail, grant of—Definition of “opium” as given in clause (iii) of subsection (t) of S.2 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provided that the ‘poast’ could only be considered, narcotic substance, if same contained 0.2 per cent of morphine—Report of Chemical Examiner revealed no such percentage and it was yet to be determined whether, according to the report of Chemical Examiner, the case against accused fell within the purview of S.9(a) (b) or (c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which could only be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence and receiving percentage report from the Chemical Examiner—Accused, was admiÂtted to bail in circumstances.
2008 PCrLJ 750 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAJABAT ALI SHAH VS State
497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.2(d)(ii) & 9(c)—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Alleged material recovered from accused was sent to the Chemical Examiner and. according to his report, entire recovered material was “Shang”—Contention of counsel for accused that “Shang” was not hemp as defined in S.2(d)(ii) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had made the case of accused one of further inquiry—Accused was behind the bars since long and his further detention in the lock-up would not serve an beneficial purpose—Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
2007 PLD 155 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
State VS FAZAL MUHAMMAD
—-Ss. 6, 9 & 2(t)—Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemical, Equipment and Materials) Rules; 2001—Percentage of morphine present in poppy capsules or poppy straw not to be necessarily proved by prosecution—C
2007 PLD 155 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
State VS FAZAL MUHAMMAD
—S. 2(t)—Opium Act (I of 1878), Preamble—Dangerous Drugs Act (II of 1930, Preamble—Opium—Definition assigned to opium in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is a complete definition in itself and omission of the words “from which narco
2007 PLD 155 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
State VS FAZAL MUHAMMAD
—Ss. 2(t) & 9—Opium—Poppy capsules—Poppy capsule of any species of papaver is included in the definition of `opium’ as assigned under S.2(t) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and possession thereof is punishable under 5.9 of the said
2007 PCRLJ 156 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SAEED VS State
—S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 2(g)(h)(t)(u)(za), 3 & 51—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R.4(2)—Bail—Refusal of—Recovery of Psychotropic substance—Delay of nine days in se
2007 YLR 3021 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI VS State
—-Ss. 6, 9 & 2(d)—Prohibition (EnforceÂment 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 othe
2007 YLR 3021 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI VS 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 s
2006 PLD 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JAVED HAYAT VS State
—Ss. 74, 48, 2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 & 32—Superdari of the seized vehicle—Two persons, in the present case, claimed to be joint owners of the seized vehicle and their claim was based in that regard upon a Registration Book which was not controverte
2006 PLD 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JAVED HAYAT VS State
–Ss. 2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 32 & 74—Superdari of seized vehicle—Analysis of Ss.2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 32 & 74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Implied situations in the context of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which
2006 PCRLJ 1595 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS State
—S. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.2(d)(ii) & 9(c)—Bail,- grant of—Further inquiry—Alleged material recovered from accused was sent to Chemical Examiner and according to the report, entire recovered material was “Bha
2005 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHAIR-UL-REHMAN VS THE STATE and others
—-S. 2(s))(t)(w)(v), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9—Poast or Doda, being apart of a poppy plant, falls within the definition of “opium” and, therefore, the same has to be treated and accepted as “narcotic drug” for the purpose of S.2(s), Control of Narcotic Substa
2005 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHAIR-UL-REHMAN VS THE STATE and others
—-Ss. 2(t) & 76—Opium Act (I of 1878), S.2(i)—Dangerous Drugs Act (II of 1930), S.2(e)—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Schedule—Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance (VI of 1995), S.2(r)—“Opium”—Definition of “opium”
2005 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHAIR-UL-REHMAN VS THE STATE and others
—S. 2(t)—Poast—What exactly is’ called Poast.
In the local parlance Poast is the name given to that part of a poppy plant which has the shape of a basket, sack or pouch and it contains the seeds of such plant. This natural pouch or bulb made of the
2005 PLD 440 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHAIR-UL-REHMAN VS THE STATE and others
—Ss. 2(t)(i)(ii)(iii) & 3—“Poast” or “Doda” by itself cannot be termed as a “mixture” or “liquid preparation” for the purposes of S.2(t)(iii) or S.3 of the Act, and therefore, in a case of recovery of “Poast” or “Doda” no ascertainment by a chemical e
1998 PCRLJ 2086 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
NASRULLAH VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 9, 29 & 21—Appreciation of evidence— “Controlled substances”—Connotation—” Opium baked” being covered by the “controlled substances” was cognizable by the Special Court constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Since