Section 4 : Prohibition of cultivation of narcotic plants
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.
2008 PCrLJ 361 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SARTAJ VS State
497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.4-Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—From the person of accused while escaping through stairs of his house, a plastic bag containing one kilogram ‘Garda Charas’ and 3 slabs weighing three kilograms ‘Pukhta Charas’ were recovered out of which 5/5 grams were separated for analysis through Forensic Science Laboratory and sealed into four different parcels and the remaining stuff was separately sealed—Samples were allegedly sent to Forensic Science Laboratory 6 days after recovery of contraband—Laboratory had reported that all the four parcels of samples separated from the whole contraband Charas, contained Charas and none of the parcels was found containing Charas Garda—Report of Laboratory was seriously doubtful as to whether the parcel sent to Laboratory was, in fact, the sample of alleged contraband material recovered from the person of accused or those parcels were regarding some other material lying in Police Station which made the case of accused one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of S.497 Cr.P.C. entitling hint to concession of bail—Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.
2008 MLD 1002 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ROOH-ULLAH VS State
Ss. 4, 5, 15 & 9(c)—Appreciation of evidence—Trial Court while convicting and sentencing two accused, had adopted view that when both of them were arrested, they Were gathering opium Poppy as envisaged in S.4 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act. 1997—Said opinion of the Trial Court could not be agreed to because putting huge quantity of `crushed Poppy Pods and straws’ in vehicle and taking it from one place to another, was a process, which did not fall within the meaning of `gather’ used in S.4 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Both said accused persons; in circumstances were wrongly held guilty. under S.4 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Conviction of said two accused which was on wrong premises, was not sustainable—Conviction and sentence of said two accused, were set aside and their case was remanded for retrial and fresh decision according to law.
2005 YLR 1363 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
SADO KHAN KAKAR VS State
–Ss. 4/5—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A, 190(3), 193(1) & 204—Quashing of order—Sessions Court’s order whereby the accused was ordered to be taken into custody and committed to Jail on having been produced before it pursuant to iss
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
2004 PCRLJ 746 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Khan MUHAMMAD KHAN VS THE STATE
—-Preamble, Ss.4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 14—Intent and object behind enacting Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, inter alia, was to control the production, processing and trafficking of narcotics etc. and the Act being a special law the effective
2001 YLR 912 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHAMSHAD KHAN VS STATE
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 4, 9, 12 & 13—Bail, grant of—Bail was refused to the accused by the Trial Court for the only reason of his involvement in two other identical cases and being a habitual offender—Accu
2000 PCRLJ 533 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL SHAKOOR VS STATE
—-S. 497—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)-Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4–Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9/4/43/97 — Bail, grant of—Accused was in custody for more than six months but the trial had not so far concluded—Two smal