Section 3 : Calculation of percentages in liquid preparations
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.
2019 PLD 669 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD NAEEM VS State
Ss. 3 & 9(c)—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 10-A—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 423(1)(a)—Possession of narcotic—Intoxicating liquid—Report of Chemical Examiner failed to mention the percentage of “morphine” found in the intoxicating substance—Trial Court acquitted the accused on the basis of such inconclusive Report—On appeal High Court gave directions for obtaining fresh samples of the alleged intoxicating substance and preparing a fresh report of the Chemical Examiner—Legality—Such direction of the High Court amounted to granting the prosecution a premium on its failure to put up a proper case in the first instance—Such judicial intervention was opposed to the adversary principle and offensive to the fundamental right of fair trial and due process guaranteed under the Constitution—High Court has travelled beyond its lawful powers under S.423(1)(a), Cr.P.C. and had in fact directed to conduct re-investigation or further investigation of the case, which was not permissible under the law—Even otherwise, calling for fresh examination of the intoxicating substance at the appellate stage after many years may frustrate the settled laws as to safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered substance making the report of the Chemical Examiner suspect and unreliable—Impugned judgment of High Court whereby the case was remanded to the Trial Court for retrial was set-aside and acquittal recorded by the Trial Court was restored—Appeals were allowed accordingly.
2019 PLD 669 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD NAEEM VS State
Ss. 3 & 9(c)—Possession of narcotic—Intoxicating liquid—Report of Chemical Examiner failing to mention the percentage of “morphine” found in the intoxicating substance—Effect—Such fatal omission made the report of the Chemical Examiner inconclusive, leaving it uncertain whether the substance passed for a narcotic drug, and the same was unreliable to support conviction under the Act.
2009 PCrLJ 523 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SHAIR KHAN VS State
Ss. 3, 4 & 9(c)—Appreciation of evidence—No direct or circumstantial evidence was available to connect accused with the commission of the offence—Alleged recovery of narcotic substance was not effected from the direct physical and conscious possession of accused—Accused was not apprehended by the police with the alleged recovered contraband Charas—Material contradictions were found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses who were not worthy of reliance—Manner of arrest of accused and recovery of the narcotics were highly doubtful—Trial Court had not appreciated the prosecution evidence in its true perspective and impugned judgment of conviction of the Trial Court was not in conformity with the provisions of S.367, Cr.P.C.—Prosecution case was full of doubts, the benefit whereof would entitle accused to acquittal—Impugned conviction and sentence of accused were set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge brought against him in the case and he was set at liberty, in circumstances.
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.
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
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