Section 8 : Prohibition on trafficking or financing the trafficking of narcotic drugs, etc.
2022 YLRN 99 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
AADIL VS State
Preamble & Ss. 7, 8 & 9—Object and purpose—Sentence, quantum of—Import or export of narcotic/drugs, trafficking or financing the trafficking of narcotics/drugs—Scope—Object and purpose as mentioned in the Preamble of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances—Object and purpose was also to regulate the treatment and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts and the matters connected and incidental therewith—Section 7 prohibited the import into, export from and transporting within Pakistan of any narcotic drug and psychotropic substance or controlled substance, save in accordance with the Rules made under S.7(2) of the Act—Trafficking or financing the trafficking of narcotic drugs was prohibited under S. 8—Section 9 described distinct punishments for contravention of the prohibition contained in Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997—Punishments were divided into three categories i.e. in cls. (a), (b) & (c) of S.9—Clause (a) of S.9 prescribed punishment of imprisonment which might extend to two years or with fine or with both if the quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances or controlled substance was one hundred grams or less—Clause (b) of S.9 was in respect of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances or controlled substances which exceeded one hundred grams but did not exceed one kilogram and prescribed a punishment of imprisonment which might extend to 7 years besides imposition of fine—Likewise cl. (c) of S.9 was in respect of quantity which exceeded the limit specified in cl. (b) i.e. more than one kilogram and the punishment prescribed was death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which might extend to 14 years and the person would also be liable to fine upto rupees one million—Proviso to S. 9 provided that if the quantity exceeded 10 kilogram then the punishment would not be less than imprisonment for life.
2022 PLD 84 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AKHTAR MEEN VS State
Ss. 7, 8, 9(c), 21 & 27—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 157—Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2009 (IX of 2010), S. 9—Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 24.5, 22.70 & 24.19—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 4—Transportation of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Owner of vehicle, culpability of—Scope—Accused was alleged to have been apprehended while transporting 13 kilograms of charas—Only evidence available in the case was that of Investigating Officer and he had failed to produce the spy before the High Court despite being ordered—FIR was not registered by the SHO/Head Moharar of Excise Police Station—Nothing was mentioned about the proceedings required to be conducted by the S.H.O. under S. 157, Cr.P.C.—Perusal of challan revealed that it was submitted by the self-appointed Investigating Officer without the approval of his superior or District Public Prosecutor as required under S. 9 of the Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2009—Alleged recovered charas was never handed over by the Investigating Officer to the Incharge Malkhana—Investigating Officer had not seized the vehicle from which charas was recovered—Investigating Officer himself had disclosed name of the owner of vehicle in the challan but had not inquired from the owner that how and why his vehicle was found involved in an offence—Owner of the conveyance should have been included as co-accused for an offence under Ss. 7 & 8 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Investigating Officer after arresting the accused under S. 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, ought to have dealt with him under S. 27 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Action taken by the Investigating Officer against the accused after his arrest and alleged seizure of charas while performing function under S. 21(1) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was illegal, void ab initio, without lawful authority and, therefore, the entire trial had vitiated—Director General of Excise and Taxation was directed by the High Court to take strict disciplinary action against the Investigating Officer for his failure to follow the basic criminal law—Appeal was allowed.
2020 YLR 1861 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
The STATE/ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE VS SHAH MUHAMMAD alias SHAHAN
Ss. 6, 9(c), 8(b), 12, 13, 19 & 37—Possession of narcotics, trafficking or financing the trafficking of narcotic drugs, acquisition and possession of assets derived from narcotic offences, forfeiture of assets of an offender, freezing of assets—Appreciation of evidence—Appeal against acquittal—Benefit of doubt—Accused persons were seen by raiding party in possession of narcotics when two of them escaped from the spot and one was arrested—Prosecution case was doubtful for the reason that two persons had escaped from the spot in the presence of trained officials of Anti-Narcotics Force, which was not understandable—Prosecution had failed to prove safe custody of the narcotic substance and its safe transmission to the Chemical Examiner—Trial Court had rightly pointed out infirmities in the case of prosecution—Judgment passed by trial court was neither arbitrary nor capricious—Scope of appeal against acquittal was considerably narrow and presumption of innocence was attached to the order of acquittal—Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2020 YLRN 27 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
JALAL FAZAL VS State
S.497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7(1), 8(A) & 9— Recovery of 480 grams Amphetamine (Crystal) from accused—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Personal possession—Delay in FIR and sending sample—During checking of a bus, a shopping bag kept in the pocket fixed behind the driver seat was recovered—Accused was arrested on the pointation of the driver of the bus for allegedly keeping the bag in the said pocket—Accused, in first instance, denied the ownership of the suspected shopping bag but after sometime he accepted its ownership—Bag was found containing two lumps wrapped with yellow adhesive, which contained Amphetamine (Crystal) weighing 240 grams each—Accused contended that the narcotic had not been recovered on his pointation and that the driver of the bus had not been cited as mushir of recovery and arrest and that a number of passengers were travelling in the bus but the investigating officer did not cite any independent person to witness the recovery—First Information Report was lodged with eighteen hours delay and three days delay in sending the contraband to the chemical examiner which was not plausibly explained—Such delay had made the safe custody and transmission of contraband to the chemical examiner doubtful—Complainant did not cite the Driver and Conductor of the bus to act as witnesses of the recovery, especially when the accused was pointed out by the driver to be the owner of crystalline amphetamine—Bus from which the alleged contraband was recovered was not taken into custody—Case of the accused fell within the domain of further inquiry—Bail was allowed, in circumstances.
2018 YLR 417 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Sardar MUHAMMAD AZAD KHAN VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 & 15—Possession of narcotic drugs, export and trafficking of narcotic drugs, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic drugs—Bail, refusal of—Huge quantity of narcotic drugs was recovered from a container shipped from one country to another—Scrutiny of shipment showed that documents, cell numbers, emails of both the accused persons were found involved in commission of offence—Accused was unable to point out any mis-reading, non-reading of material and law on the subject—One out of the two accused persons was previous convict in a narcotic case, said fact was conceded by accused—No enmity, ill-will or grudge was alleged against prosecution witnesses and sufficient material was brought by prosecution on the record—Bail was refused accordingly.
2017 YLRN 332 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR VS State
Ss. 497 & 103—-Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8 & 9(c)—Possession, import or export, trafficking or finance the trafficking of narcotic drugs etc.—Bail, grant of— Search to be made in presence of witnesses— Requirement— Recovered narcotics/ samples not weighed at place of arrest—Effect—Three kilogram of Charas was alleged to have been recovered from the accused—Accused was allegedly arrested from the place, which was heart of the city and thickly populated commercial area—Complainant had not associated private persons as Mashirs to maintain the alleged recovery—Requirements of S. 103, Cr.P.C. were mandatory to provide safeguard to the innocent persons from foisting false recovery by the police to settle their account of ill-will—Prosecution must have explained the circumstances for non-compliance with the provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C—FIR showed that neither nine pieces of recovered Charas, nor samples separated from the same, had been weighed at the place of recovery; hence, total weight of the recovered of the nine pieces and weight of the samples required serious consideration—Accused had been behind the bars for two months, but the prosecution had failed to examine even a single witness to substantiate the case against the accused—State counsel raised no objection to the grant of bail—Bail application was allowed accordingly.
2016 YLR 1000 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ABDUL KHALIQ VS State
Ss. 8, 32 & 33—Trafficking of narcotic drugs—Confiscation of vehicle—Release of vehicle—Locus standi—Appellant claimed to be owner of vehicle in question which was used in commission of offence and Trial Court ordered for its confiscation—Validity—Appellant was stranger to proceedings before Trial Court as the vehicle was not registered in his name and he was merely brandishing some bargain receipt in his hand on the basis of which he was lying claim over the vehicle—Plea of want of knowledge about trial proceedings in respect of vehicle in question was only available to registered owner of vehicle who did not surfaced till then—Appellant did not challenge confiscation order before High Court till the acquittal of accused and thereafter thought it fit to express his grievance against confiscation order by filing his time-barred appeal—High Court declined to interfere in confiscation order passed by Trial Court—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2016 YLR 1093 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHANI GULL VS State
Ss. 9(c), 6, 7 & 8—-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129 (g)—Possession, import and export, trafficking and financing the trafficking of narcotic drugs etc.—Appreciation of evidence—False implication, plea of—Benefit of doubt—Court may presume certain facts—Seventy-five kilogram of Charas was alleged to have been recovered from the car of the accused while he was transporting the same—Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment along with payment of fine—Material prosecution witnesses remained inconsistent with regard to the recovery of the narcotics including colour and shape of the narcotics, preparation of samples of the same, sending of the same to the Chemical Examiner, its safe custody, relevant dates, etc.—Said contradictions in statements of the prosecution witnesses reflected that the prosecution had failed to prove the safe custody of the samples and case property, which had caused dent in the prosecution story and missed the link in the chain of prosecution evidence—Prosecution had also withheld the best available evidence in shape of prosecution witness, who had allegedly handed over the complaint, sample parcels and case property to the other prosecution witness, which led to draw adverse inference in view of Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—In view of the defence statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C, the prosecution evidence deserved to be rejected—Possibility of false implication of the accused could not be ruled out—Conviction was based on misreading, non-reading and mis-appreciation of available evidence—High Court, extending benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused—Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
2016 PCrLJ 1170 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Haji ZAFAR ABBAS VS State
Ss. 9(c), 8, 7, 5 & 36— Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysis) Rules (2001), R. 6—Prohibition of possession, import and export, trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotic drugs—Appreciation of evidence—Report of result of test or analysis—Scope—Prosecution evidence came up with material contradictions, which had created strong doubt in the veracity of the prosecution case—Eye-witnesses of the place of occurrence had given different versions—Prosecution witnesses had stated the colour of the recovered Charas to be blackish; whereas, the report of Chemical Examiner showed that the colour was greenish—Said contradiction as to the colour of the recovered substance was damaging to the prosecution case—Statement of prosecution witnesses and report of Chemical Examiner were also contradictory as to number of parcels of Charas and opium sent to the Chemical Examiner and as to manner and time of their transmission to the Chemical Examiner—Report of Chemical Examiner could not be said to be full and complete, disclosing the full protocols of the test applied, except the bare opinion that the packets contained Charas—In terms of R. 6 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysis) Rules, 2001, report of the Chemical Examiner containing his opinion must have disclosed the procedure and the reasons on which his opinion was based—Opinion rendered by the Chemical Examiner was no evidence, unless the same was supported with reasons—Said patent infirmity noticed in the report was fatal to the prosecution case—High Court, setting aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the accused— Appeal was allowed accordingly.
2016 PLD 378 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MOMIN KHAN VS State
- 497—-Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9 (b)—Possession, import or export, trafficking or financing the trafficking of narcotic drugs etc.—Bail, refusal of—Bail could be declined in case of recovery of 990 grams of Charas—One thousand grams of Charas from one accused and one hundred grams of Charas along with ten grams of heroin were alleged to have been recovered from the other accused—Narcotics although had been recovered from the accused persons only in presence of Mashirs/police witnesses, but no enmity had been shown by the accused with the Anti-Narcotics Force for their false implication—Accused were narcotic traffickers and had been apprehended from the street while being in possession of the narcotics—Offence in question, being heinous in nature, considered as offence against the society at large; therefore, even if the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C, the accused were not entitled to the grant of bail—Bail could be declined even in case where the recovered Charas was 990 grams—Bail application was dismissed accordingly.
2016 PCrLJ 975 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed HYDER ALI SHAH VS State
Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9—Bail, grant of—Possession, import and export trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotic drugs—Search to be made in presence of witnesses—Bail, grant of—Independent mashir/witnesses, absence of— Further enquiry—Consistency, rule of—Applicability—Recovery, mode of—Two recovered envelopes of heroin were not weighed separately—Effect—Duty of Chemical Examiner—Benefit of doubt at bail stage—Scope—Enmity, existence of—Complainant had prior information about the accused having narcotic substances in their possession for sale, but he had neither associated any independent mashir/witness nor made any serious efforts to get any public person to act as mashir—Private persons should have been given preference if they were available at the spot, rather than personnel, to maintain transparency of the recovery—Heroin powder was recovered from two envelopes, but the same was not weighed on the spot, and the complainant had assessed its total weight to be 1300 grams tentatively—Chemical Examiner had also not weighed both envelopes separately mentioning their net weight, but he had mentioned total weight of heroin powder lying in two envelopes as 1300 grams—Chemical Examiner was duty bound to mention net weight of heroin powder lying in the two envelopes separately after deducting weight of both envelops—Net weight of the heroin powder might become more or less 1000 grams after deducting weight of both envelopes—Co-accused had already filed harassment petition against the complainant, under which court had directed the complainant not to cause any kind of harassment to the accused—Prosecution could not satisfy as to why the complainant had registered second FIR against present accused for the same narcotic, which had reflected the personal grudge of the complainant—Co-accused had already granted bail—No criminal case was already registered against the accused—Accused was regular university student and a character certificate had also been issued in his favour—Challan had already been submitted and the accused was no more required—No apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence existed, as prosecution witnesses were police officials—Bail application was accepted accordingly.
2016 PCrLJ 508 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS State
Ss. 9(c), 6, 7 & 8—Possession, import or export, trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotic drugs etc.—Appreciation of evidence—False implication/enmity, plea of—Two contradictory versions were advanced in defence plea—Twelve hundred kilograms of Charas was alleged to have been recovered from accused, while he was transporting the same through a trailer—Trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with payment of fine—Complainant and Mashirs/recovery witnesses had corroborated their evidence with each other as well as to the recovery— Accused had not shattered the said corroborative evidence—Chemical Examiner had certified the sample of the recovered Charas—Accused, while taking the plea of false implication, had advanced two (contradictory) versions in his defence, which were not supported by any documentary proof—Accused could not establish that the complainant, who belonged to other Province, had any enmity or motive to falsely implicate him—No reason existed to disbelieve the recovery of huge quantity of Charas—Prosecution had brought reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence without any discrepancy or cloud over the veracity of the prosecution story—Prosecution, thus, had proved the case beyond any shadow of doubt—Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.
2015 PCrLJ 1767 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
GHULAM SARWAR VS State
Ss. 9(c) 8, 7, 6 & 48—-Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 171—Appeal against conviction—Possession of narcotics drugs, import and export of narcotics drugs, trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotics drugs, etc.—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—When seizure or arrest is made, reason in writing to be given—Seizure memo of recovered contrabands not prepared at spot—Effect—Non-sealing of samples of contrabands at spot—Effect—Chemical Examiner’s report– Evidentiary value—Ownership of vehicle used in transportation of contraband—Requirement of proof—Charas and opium were alleged to have been recovered from accused—Trial court convicted accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay fine—Accused took plea that he had no knowledge of contrabands concealed in body of vehicle—Witnesses had made dishonest improvements in their dispositions and same were contradictory—Fard-e-bayan or notice of seizure issued under S.171 of Customs Act, 1969 had been typed, whereas prosecution witness stated that he had written the same by hand at the spot, which indicated that case property was not seized at the spot—Prosecution witness had admitted that samples of recovered contrabands had not been prepared at the spot—Neither seizure memo nor samples had been prepared at spot, which was illegal, and for which no explanation was given by complainant—Non-sealing of samples of recovered contrabands soon after its recovery had created serious doubt in prosecution case—No reliance could be placed on Chemical Examiner’s report, which, in given circumstances, had lost its evidentiary value—Prosecution had failed to prove ownership of vehicle used in transportation of recovered contrabands, as no registration documents regarding said vehicle had been produced—Nothing was available on record to show whether said vehicle belonged to accused or he was driving the same—Prosecution had failed to connect accused neither with vehicle nor with recovered contrabands— Recovery of recovered contrabands was not effected on pointation of accused—Prosecution failed to prove conscious possession or knowledge of recovered contrabands—Trial court could not properly appreciate defence plea—Entire case of prosecution was defective, doubtful and full of contradictions—Impugned judgment suffered from wrong appreciation, non-reading and misreading of evidence—High Court, extending benefit of doubt, acquitted accused—Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
2015 YLR 855 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHOAIB SULTAN VS State
S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.7, 8, 9 (c), 14 & 15—Import, export and trafficking of narcotic drug—Bail, grant of—Use of licence—Suspension of proceedings—Interim post arrest bail—Plea raised by accused was that proceedings before Trial Court had been suspended—Effect—No incriminating evidence was available against accused, which could justify his facing trial—Earlier order was an interim order and was subject to final order passed in those proceedings—Such situation could not justify keeping accused in custody for an indefinite period when according to both the parties no evidence of whatsoever nature was available against accused—Only licence of accused was used which was normal in market and such fact could not constitute criminal offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, by itself for making out a case—Incriminating evidence was necessary when a person was brought in Court to face trial—Interim post arrest bail was allowed in circumstances.
2015 PCrLJ 1133 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDULLAH BHUTTO VS State
Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14, 15 & 29—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380, 381, 406, 408 & 409—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.403—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.19—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.13(a)—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Theft in dwelling house, theft by clerk or servant, criminal breach of trust, criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant, public servant—Double jeopardy—Appreciation of evidence—Case against accused was bifurcated in three parts, on direction of Trial Court, and challan was submitted in three counts respectively—Case under Ss.380 & 381, P.P.C. was challaned and submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate at place ‘S’, while offence under Ss.406, 408 & 409, P.P.C. in court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption at place ‘L’ and for offence under Ss.9(c), 14 & 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in the court of Special Judge (Control of Narcotic Substances) at place ‘S’—Accused, had been finally acquitted in first two challan cases regarding theft and misappropriation of charas lying in the Record Room of a court—Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was punitive clause, would come into play only when contravention of Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the Act, was made by accused—Person who was found in possession of narcotic, or was indulged in import and export of narcotic, or was found involved in trafficking of narcotic, could be convicted and sentenced under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Present case of the prosecution was not that accused was found importing or exporting the contraband narcotics in any manner—Contraband charas, was allegedly kept in “Malkhana” of which accused being Police Official was incharge of charas in question, which was allegedly misappropriated for monetary gains—Accused had been acquitted of the charges of misappropriation and theft by both the Trial Courts respectively—Prosecution having failed to prove the primary charges of the theft and misappropriation case of prosecution could not succeed on the same set of evidence in view of Art. 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, merely for the reason of the act of possessing and trafficking the contraband charas—Accused having already been acquitted by two different courts of the charges of theft and misappropriation in the same crime, therefore, rule that no one would be vexed twice for the same offence, was fully applicable in the present scenario of the case—Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, were set aside, and accused was acquitted of the charge and his bail bond stood cancelled and surety was discharged, in circumstances.
2013 YLR 1617 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD SADIQ VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9(c)—Possession and trafficking of narcotic—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 14 packets—Challan was complete and trial had commenced—Bail petition of accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
2013 PCrLJ 735 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NABI GUL VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 8 & 9(c)—Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S. 7—Possession and trafficking of narcotic—Bail, refusal of—Plea of juvenility, rejection of—Supervision and control over vehicle carrying narcotic—Scope—Heroin weighing 75 kilograms was allegedly found from the secret cavities of a truck in which the accused was present as a second driver—Contentions of accused were that alleged heroin was not recovered from his exclusive possession but same was recovered from the truck; that no driving licence had been secured from him by the police; that at the time of incident he was aged about 17 years and as such his case fell within the ambit of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000; that although the Medical Board had opined that accused was 20 years of age but doctors of the Board had given contradictory versions in their cross-examination—Validity—Accused, who was apprehended at the spot, was one of the drivers of the truck in question and truck was under his supervision and control—No documentary proof existed regarding enmity of accused with the complainant party so as to involve him in the matter falsely—Offence alleged was punishable with death and fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.—Medical Board had declared age of accused to be 20 years—Bail application of accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
2012 YLR 1316 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BACHA MIR VS State
Ss. 6, 8, 9(c) & 25—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Plea of counsel for accused was that no private Mashir or passenger from the Bus in question was associated or made witness—Provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had clearly provided that for the purposes of search and arrest in the narcotic cases, the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable—Even otherwise, Police employees were the competent witnesses like any other independent witness; and their testimony could not be discarded merely on the ground that they were Police employees—Statements of prosecution witnesses remained constant on all material particulars, despite lengthy cross-examination to which they were subjected—Nothing came out from the defence witness which might help accused—Accused was driver of the bus in question, while co-accused was its cleaner and charas was also recovered from the secret cavities of the bus—No doubt existed regarding the conscious possession and knowledge of contraband in the case—According to prosecution story, 110 Kg slabs of one Kg, were recovered from the secret cavities, and each slab of one Kg, was separated from each bag for sending to the Chemical Examiner, which had shown that only six Kg charas was sent for chemical examination—Report of Chemical Examiner, though was positive, but according to description of articles contained in parcel, six printed plastic Pani Packets, each containing one Kg black brown colour slab wrapped in plastic Pani was sent—Undoubtedly only six slabs of charas of one Kg each out of 110 slabs were sent for chemical examination and it was not ascertained that recovery of remaining slabs were of charas or some other commodity—Conviction of accused did not call for any interference, but nothing was brought on record by the prosecution that accused were previously convicted or found previously involved in any narcotic cases—Life imprisonment to both the accused was reduced to 8 years, without any modification into quantum of fine.
2012 PCrLJ 235 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mir IFTIKHAR AHMED VS State
- 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8 & 9(c)—Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 155-A, 155-B, 155-D, 79 & 80—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Benefit of doubt—Name of accused and his firm did not appear in the F.I.R.—Applicant and his firm was not the registered importers within the meaning of Ss.155-A, 155-B and 155-D of the Customs Act, 1969; nor accused and his firm were on active taxpayers’ list of Federal Board of Revenue and was not entitled to file/lodge any Bill of Entry—No import manifest had been filed to show the name of accused as the importer of the container—No Bill of Entry or any other document within the meaning of Ss.79 & 80 of the Customs Act, 1969 was filed by accused or his firm—Shipping documents as well as clearing and forwarding documents of the consignment which arrived at the Port, did not contain the name of accused or his firm with regard to the involvement in respect of the alleged import—Booking confirmation documents, did not contain the name of accused—Alleged cocaine was not recovered from the physical possession of accused, nor any overt or covert attempt was made to take possession of said container—Original Bill of Lading was not available to show the ownership of the container nor any other import documents, were on record which would prima facie show that accused or his firm was the importer or had knowledge of alleged goods to establish nexus with accused in the commission of the offence—Certain anomalies in prosecution case required further investigation—No credible or tangible evidence was available against accused and his firm to connect him with the commission of alleged offence—Deeper appreciation of evidence was not warranted or desirable at bail stage and the benefit of doubt, even at bail stage should also go in favour of accused—Whenever reasonable doubt would arise as to participation of accused in the alleged offence, bail should not be withheld as punishment—No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind the bars since all material was with the prosecution and there was no likelihood of tampering of prosecution evidence by accused—Accused having made out a case of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
2012 MLD 1503 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CHRISTOPHE YAKIBONGAY VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotics—Bail, grant of—First bail application of accused had been disposed of by High Court without touching merits of the case, with a direction to Trial Court for conclusion of trial by a specified date—Two co-accused similarly placed in the F.I.R. had already been released on bail—Accused was in custody for the last more than two years and trial was still going on—Accused was entitled to bail on the rule of consistency—Even otherwise, direction of High Court of concluding the trial within the specified period had not been followed by the Trial Court in letter and spirit—Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
2011 SCMR 1471 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD HANIF VS State
Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14, 15 & 16—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A—Superdari of vehicle—Principle—Petitioner was registered owner of vehicle from which narcotics was recovered—No other person had come forward to claim ownership or possession of vehicle in question—Petitioner was not accused person in the case and he undertook to produce the relevant vehicle before any court of law if and when required to do so-Effect-Investigating agency was not justified in treating or taking possession of the vehicle as case property—Supreme Court directed that vehicle in question should not to be treated as case property and the same was handed over to petitioner on Superdari—Appeal was allowed.
2010 PCrLJ 348 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
BASHIR KHAN VS State
Ss. 6/7/8/9—Recovery of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Murasila as well as F.I.R. indicated recovery of certain items, but said items were not included in the recovered case property—Items mentioned in memo. of personal search were never produced before the court during trial—In cases involving recovery of narcotic, the report of laboratory indicating chemical analysis of samples thereof was considered to be of immense significance as it could provide a strong ground for connection between an accused and the incriminating material—Three samples were separated from the incriminating narcotics—Said exhibit, though contained F.I.R. number and its date, but was silent regarding. the name of Police Station and the relevant district—All the doubts in respect of subjecting the solitary sample, allegedly separated from the recovered lot and its dispatch to Forensic Science Laboratory, would reasonably prevail, in circumstances—Case of prosecution was that after recovery of contraband narcotic, the entire bulk along with one separated sample of 5 grams was deposited in the State warehouse, but deposit of incriminating vehicle, was not gatherable from, investigation record produced before the Trial Court—Inspector Incharge, warehouse, did not speak of deposit of sample along with the case property in the said warehouse—Preparation of recovery memo. was very much dubious as the said document, though pertained to seizure of incriminating narcotics, was not signed by any of the witnesses thereto—NonÂ-production of mobile phone, driving licence and pistol etc. before the Trial Court, despite its recovery at the spot of occurrence, had extended sufficient reason to disbelieve the version of prosecution in reference to the entire alleged recoveries—Prosecution had nowhere in the entire trial, attempted to prove that the samples allegedly separated on the spot were withdrawn from the whole lot comprising 39 packets—Prosecution, in circumstances remained unsuccessful in bringing home the charge against accused without reasonable doubt—Impugned findings of the Trial Court were set aside and accused was acquitted, in circumstances.
2010 PCrLJ 825 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Haji INAYAT VS State
Ss. 6, 8 & 9(c)—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—In the present case what could be said at the most against accused persons was that they were transporting charas in the truck—Nothing had been proved that would show that accused were trafficking the charas i.e. engaged in the trade or the buying or selling of charas, which would bring the matter within the meaning of S.8 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—When something was in or on board a moving conveyance (such as a truck), it was of course being transported from one place to another which was not enough by itself, question under S.6 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was whether the prohibited drug/substance was being transported by the accused—For purpose of S.6 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and in the specific context of conveyance, accused could be said to have possession of prohibited drugs which were in or on board the conveyance—Accused must have knowledge of thing or substance which he was supposed to be in possession of—If such possession with knowledge was established then it could not be necessary also to establish that accused specifically had knowledge that the thing or substance that he possessed was a prohibited drug—Accused persons were not the owners of truck in question, but they were simply its driver and his helper—Charas itself was not lying in the truck in an open or easily accessible place, but was hidden in a secret compartment inside the body of the truck and that secret compartment was not pointed out or revealed by either of accused persons; it could not be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt that accused knew or could be regarded as knowing that the charas was in or on board of the truck—Such facts could reasonably raise a suspicion and suspicion was not proof—Even the conclusion that the truck was in “exclusive possession” of accused persons was not accurate—No doubt accused were the only persons in the truck, when it was intercepted by the Excise Officer, but that did not automatically establish that the truck was in their exclusive possession, when the charas was placed in the secret compartment—Reasonable doubt existed as to whether accused could be regarded as having possession of the charas within the meaning of S.6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and whether accused could be regarded as transporting the charas within the meaning of said section—Accused, in circumstances, stood acquitted, impugned judgment was set aside and conviction and sentence of accused were quashed.
2010 PCrLJ 292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN VS State
S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 8, 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic—Bail, refusal of—All the prosecution witnesses had clearly stated during the investigation that accused was cleaner of the vehicle in which contraband narcotic was transported—Question as to associating the Police witnesses and non-associating the private witnesses, section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had imposed bar that S.103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable in narcotic cases—Record had connected accused with the commission of the alleged offence—Counsel of accused having failed to make out a case for grant of bail, his bail application was dismissed.
2010 PTD 1104 Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
VS
R.103(2)—Customs Agent (Licensing) Rule, 1971, Rr.19 & 21–Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.2(s), 156(1)(98)(89) & 178—Control of . Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.6, 7, 8 & 9—Custom Agent Licensing—Action in case of violation—Revocation of license on the ground of inefficiency—Licence of the appellant was suspended on 7-8-1998 by the authority, which had been. appealed against and it was on 9-8-2006, after the period of more than eight (8) years, the case was decided by the Licensing Authority—Department pleaded that there was no time of limitation for adjudication of such cases—Validity—Expeditious disposal of the cases was the requirement of the time, as well as was the mandate of every civilized law, because it determines the rights of the parties and save them from unnecessary inconvenience—Where no limitation for conclusion of any proceedings was fixed, such proceedings must be concluded, within a reasonable time—Where the law required issuance of notice, within the stipulated period, the Licensing Authority was required to complete the proceedings within a reasonable time—Where law required issuance of notice as a necessary corollary it excepted completion of proceedings on such notice, within the relevant time period—Merely, issuing a notice, the Licensing Authority was not absolved of his duty to complete the proceedings, within’ a reasonable time period—Issuance of notice did not give an unending period of time to complete the proceedings—Purpose of issuance of notice within certain time frame would be defeated, if the Licensing Authority, after having acted and issued a notice was allowed to sleep over the matter, or drag same along for almost eight years—Order passed after time period of almost eight years, could not be said to be in accordance with law—All the superstructure built subsequently, would suffer from the same infirmity—Such order would be liable to be set at naught on the ground of their having been passed against the express provisions of law—When the High Court exonerated the appellant from the charges levelled against him, the Licensing Authority should have clearly acted in good faith as no charge of misdeclaration/production of false documents, collusion and fraud had been proved against the appellant and revocation of his licence merely; on the grounds of his inefficiency could be a very harsh decision—Order of Licensing Authority was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal and case was remanded to the Licensing Authority for decision afresh by taking into consideration the issues raised by the appellant and then pass a speaking and judicious order by providing an ample opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
2009 SCMR 569 SUPREME-COURT
BADAR MUNIR VS State
Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.423 & 439—Reappraisal of evidence—Converting acquittal into conviction—Revisional jurisdiction—Condonation of delay—Division Bench of High Court under suo motu action and in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, converted acquittal of accused into conviction—Validity—Though High Court had been conferred with power of appellate Court under S.423 Cr.P.C. while exercising powers of revision under S.439, Cr.P.C. but S.423(1), Cr.P.C. did not award power to revisional court to convict any acquitted person by taking suo motu action—Division Bench of High Court was not empowered to exercise suo motu power of revision in such manner so as to convert judgment of acquittal into a judgment of conviction—Although the appeal was barred by 31 days, yet in the interest of justice, Supreme Court condoned the delay, set aside conviction passed by High Court and acquitted the accused—Appeal was allowed.
2009 PCrLJ 1284 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD AZEEM VS State
Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9(c)—Appreciation of evidence—Counsel for accused did not dispute the conviction of accused, but had prayed that sentence awarded to accused, could be reduced to that already undergone and the amount of fine could also be reduced—Accused was in custody for more than seven and half years inclusive the remission extended to him—Accused was a first offender and had shown his remorse and penitence as convict—Since accused had served substantive sentence of more than seven and half years including the remission, he deserved leniency–Maintaining conviction awarded to accused by the Trial Court, sentence of ten years awarded to him was reduced to one already undergone and amount of fine was also reduced from Rs.25,000 to Rs.5,000, accordingly.
2009 MLD 773 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
EJAZ ALI VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.8 & 9—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.38—Bail, grant of—Allegation against accused was that he was Deputy Assistant Director in the Airport Security Force and was on duty at the airport on relevant day and was required to help the passengers in the clearance of their goods which he had failed to do—Investigating Agency could not collect any evidence, except confessional statements of co-accused, who allegedly stated before the Investigating Officer that accused was requested by them to help accused persons in the clearance of their goods—Special Prosecutor had conceded that except for the confessional statements of co-accused before the Investigating Officer, no evidence was available against accused—Article 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided that confessional statement of an accused before an Investigating Officer, was inadmissible in evidence and same could not be used even against its maker not to talk of any other person—Reasonable grounds, in circumstances, were not available to believe that accused was guilty of offence—Case being fit for the grant of bail to accused was directed to’ be released on bail.
2009 YLR 598 ISLAMABAD
ISMAIL MICHAEL VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14 & 15—Bail, refusal of—Narcotics was recovered from the shoes, which were purchased from a company—Owner along with manager of said company had identified accused on seeing his photograph, being the person, who purchased shoes from them—Deeper appreciation of evidence was not allowed at bail stage and any tentative assessment of material collected by the prosecution during investigation was to be made—Prima facie sufficient material was available on record to believe involvement of accused in the case, wherein offence was punishable with death or life imprisonment and fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. —Challan had already been submitted in the Trial Court, where trial was likely to commence soon—Bail was declined in circumstances.
2008 PCrLJ 348 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SHAUKAT HAYAT VS State
2008 MLD 1061 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AHMED HUSSAIN VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 & 37—Bail, grant of—Challan was submitted after about 20 days from occurrence and charge was framed after lapse of four years of incident—No progress was made in the trial of case—Accused could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period for no fault of his own in delay of the trial of case—Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.
2007 PCRLJ 873 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
State VS MUNAWAR HUSSAIN
–S. 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/7/8/9(c)/14/15/16—Entire case property was directed by Trial Court to be produced before the Court—Validity—Poppy straw weighing 9013. Kgs. allegedly recovered from accused was lyin
2007 PCRLJ 493 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
State VS KASHIF ALI
—S. 497(5)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9 & 25–Bail, cancellation of—Bail was granted to accused-on the ground that prosecution had failed to arrange private witnesses to act as Mashirs—Validity—Spy information
2007 PLD 110 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AHUDHA MANLIKI VS State
—Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9—Drug trafficking, smuggling and normal possession of drugs—Drug trafficking and smuggling from Pakistan to another country—Criteria and yardstick for examining the cases of normal possession or transportation of narcotic drugs, sh
2006 SCMR 468 SUPREME-COURT
Sh. MUHAMMAD TASLEEM VS State
—S. 497-Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14, 15 & 16—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Bail, refusal of—Investigating agency, after carrying out investigation in the matter, had placed the name of the a
2006 PCRLJ 1251 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
QADIR BAKHSH VS State
—Ss. 497 & 188—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 & 37—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.38—Bail, grant of—Captain of foreign ship called personnel of Anti-Narcotic Force, at his ship and handed
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 PCRLJ 1176 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAQEER MUHAMMAD VS State
—S. 497—Pakistan Coastguards Act (XVIII of 1973), S.14(1)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.8—Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.6—Bail, refusal of—F.I.R. registered by Pakistan Coastguards showed that accused was arrested at Railwa
2004 PCRLJ 37 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
KARIM VS THE STATE
—–Arts. 3/4—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/7/8—Appreciation of evidence—Statements of two prosecution witnesses, who were police officials, were full of contradictions, infirmities and discrepancies—Courts of law were un
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
2003 YLR 1901 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ADIL HUSSAIN VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9—Appreciation of evidence—Contradiction appearing in testimony of prosecution witnesses with regard to time of occurrence—One witness had stated that occurrence took place at 8-30 p.m. and that no witness from the public was calle
2003 PCRLJ 1379 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
TILA MUHAMMAD VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution had not been able to establish with any reasonable certainty as to whether all or which of the three accused persons could be attr
2003 PCRLJ 1123 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
BAKHT JAMAL VS THE STATE
—-S.4—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203-D(2)—Inheritance—Suit for declaration—Trial Court decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs being children of predeceased sons/daughters of original owner of s
2003 PLD 87 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
THE STATE VS RASHID
—-Ss. 439 & 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss..6/7/8/9—Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss.16/156(1)(89)/157/178/2(s)–Superdari of vehicle—Petitioner had challenged the order of Judge Special Court whereby he had handed over the
2003 PCRLJ 1700 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD LATEEF VS THE STATE
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 37—Bail, grant of—Contention of the accused was that although according to Mashirnama 4 Kgs. of Charas was alleged to have been recovered from the possess
2002 PLD 610 SUPREME-COURT
THE STATE VS ALI RAZA (RAZA ALI)
—-Ss. 156(1)/8/14 —Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.403—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199, 13 & 185(3)—Constitutional petition before High Court—Double trial—Com
2002 MLD 265 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
ABDUL HADI VS THE STATE
Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 8 & 17—Appreciation of evidence—No illicit narcotic or’any other thing concerning or relating to production, manufacture, preparation etc., of any narcotics was recovered from the area searched by the patrolling party—Prosecution had not produced any evidence to show that the accused had organized, managed, trafficked in or financed the import, transport or manufactured narcotic drugs, psychotropic substance or controlled substance or used violence or arms for committing or attempted to commit an offence punishable under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Prosecution had also not successfully discharged the initial burden to prove that the accused had hindered or obstructed any Officers from performance of their duties under the said Act so as to attract application of he provisions of Ss. 8 & 17 thereof—No evidence had even been produced by the prosecution within the purview of S. 29 of the aforesaid Act so as to take the presumption against the accused which might expose him to criminal liability—Burden to prove innocence, therefore, had not shifted to the accused merely for the reason that such inference could be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the , prosecution evidence—Accused had satisfactorily explained his presence in the area and the evidence led by him was convincing and probable—Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
2002 PCRLJ 1680 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
GUL SAID VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21 & 47—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.59 & 154—Arrest of accused who committed a non-bailable and cognizable offence—Under S.59, Cr.P.C. even a private person could arrest an accused who committed a non-bailable and
2002 PCRLJ 666 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ABDUL HAMID VS THE STATE
—S. 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 74 & 32—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4—Custody of the vehicle—Record did not show that the vehicle in question was used in the commission o
2002 MLD 662 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
TAHIR AHMAD VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 154 & 561-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11—Registration of second F.I.R.—Powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.—No hard and fast rules existed under which the Police/Investigating Agencies could be prevented
2001 SCMR 1083 SUPREME-COURT
THE STATE VS NASIM AMIN BUTT
Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14 & 15—Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156(1)(8)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 13—Narcotics, smuggling of—Trial of accused persons under two different laws—Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether the offences for which the accused persons were being tried under Ss.6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14 & 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were the same for which they had earlier been tried under 5.156(1)(8) of Customs Act; 1969, as. such, was violative of Art. 13 of the Constitution.
2001 SCMR 14 SUPREME-COURT
THE STATE VS ABDUL QAYUM
Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S.497(5)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 & 15—Bail, cancellation of—Failure of prosecution to show any direct or indirect piece of evidence connecting accused with the crime—_ Reliance was placed on the statements of co-accused recorded by police during investigation—Nothing incriminating was found against the accused—Statements of co-accused could not be relied upon for the purpose of cancellation of bail.
2001 MLD 142 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ZAFAR VS THE STATE
—-S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/7/8/9— Bail—Recovery of heroin from the accused had been witnessed by the officials of Anti-Narcotic Force who had supported the same in their statements made under S.161, Cr.P.C.—La
2001 PLD 152 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
NASRULLAH VS THE STATE
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8 & 9—Bail, grant of—Record showed the recovery of seven Kgs. of Charas from the possession of the accused which could not be convincingly disputed—Nonetheless, in view of the v
2001 PLD 283 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HUSSAIN ABDULLAH SALUM VS THE STATE
Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 7, 8, 9, 72 & 74—Customs’ Act (IV of 1969), S. 156—Trial of offences—All acts or omissions which may constitute offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as well as the Customs Act, 1969 or any other law, must be treated as those committed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and be tried accordingly—Mere fact of import and export of Narcotics should not mislead the Investigating or -Prosecuting Agencies to treat the matter as an offence under the Customs Act, 1969, because Ss.7 & 8 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 expressly describe such offences to have been committed under the said Act punishable under S.9 thereof.
2001 YLR 611 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS STATE
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9 & 14—Bail, grant of—Accused remained continuously in custody for about two and half years and during that period only the charge had been framed, but not a single witness wa
2001 PCRLJ 331 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ASIF ALI VS STATE
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/7/8/9/12/14/15—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.120-B/471/34–Bail—Trial Court had framed the charge, against the accused for an offence punishable with death under the Control of Narcoti
2001 MLD 1166 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIBULLAH KHAN VS THE STATE
—-S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances .Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 14 & .15—Bail, grant of—Application for quashing of proceedings earlier filed by the accused had already been dismissed by High Court—Accused was alleged to be on suspect
2000 SCMR 299 SUPREME-COURT
THE STATE VS MOBIN KHAN
Ss.497(5) & 497(1), third proviso—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 51(1)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Cancellation of bail—Bail had been allowed by High Court on the ground of statutory delay to accused from whom heroin weighing ten Kgs. was allegedly recovered—Provisions of third proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C., could not be pressed into service from grant of bail to accused in view of S.51(1) read with S.9(b) & (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Even otherwise if it was conceded for the sake of arguments, that the application of the third proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C., had not been excluded by S.51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (which seems to be incorrect, since cl. (c) of S.9 of the said Act, inter alia, carried sentence of death), the statutory period of delay would be two years under cl. (b) of the third proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C. which admittedly had not yet expired and the accused could not have been granted bail on the ground of statutory delay—Petition for leave to appeal was consequently converted into an appeal and bail allowed to accused by High Court in the case was cancelled.
2000 PCRLJ 945 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SUCHA GUL VS STATE
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic ‘Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/7/8/9(c) & 51—Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.156(1)(89)/157/178/26/ . 2(s)—Bail—Accused having been charged under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was debarred b
2000 PCRLJ 891 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SHAGUFTA ANWAR VS ZULFIQAR
—-S. 497—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.6/7/8/9–Bail, grant of—Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was not competent to register the case against the accused under Ss
2000 YLR 2173 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SABIR VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 403 & 561-A—Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss.156 (1) (89), 157 & 178—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9. 9-C, 14 & 15—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.26—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.13—Quashing of cas
2000 YLR 53 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAJRA VS THE STATE
—-S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.8 & 9—Bail, grant of—Record had not shown that alleged narcotic substance was despatched for chemical analyses and it was nowhere mentioned that any sample of narcotic substance was take
2000 PCRLJ 763 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAZRAT KHAN VS STATE
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.6/7/8/9/12/13/14/15—Bail—F.I.R. could not be ruled out of consideration merely on account of the omission of a minor fact as the same did not necessarily require to have contained the mi
2000 PCRLJ 740 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALI DOST VS STATE
—-Ss. 497 & 498—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, ~, 8, 9, 13, 14 & 51—Bail, grant of—Accused and co-accused had established a false trading company and had sent eight hundred Kgs. Hashish in bags to a foreign country—Fact
2000 PCRLJ 738 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SALEEM MEMON VS STATE
—-Ss. 497 & 498—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XV of 1997), Ss.7, 8, 9, 12 & 14—Bail, grant of—Five persons who were arrested in foreign country where consignment was being transported, had alleged during investigation that consignment was ar
2000 PCRLJ 735 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
WAKEEL AHMAD SIDDIQUI VS STATE
——Ss. 497 & 498 —–(control of narcotic substances act (XXV of 1997) Ss 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 & 51 ——-Penal code (XLV of 1860), S 120-B/34—- Bail grant of —–Allegation against accused was that he was connected with company which had export
2000 PCRLJ 569 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN VS STATE
—-Ss. 497 & 498—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 & 51—Bail, grant of—Provisions of S.51(1), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, provide bar in respect of grant of bail to an accused if Trial Court had
2000 MLD 842 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL QAYYUM VS STATE
—-S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 14 & 15—Bail—Court obviously could not be oblivious to the menace of drugs and their evil effects in the society, but the law as to the grant of bail in such offences, despit
1999 YLR 2087 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
STATE VS ZAFARVAB
—-Ss. 516-A & 439—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (JXV of 1997), S. 6/7/8/9/13—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 419/420—Custody of ve
1999 YLR 1732 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SAKINA VS STATE
—-S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9—Bail–Recovery of one kilogram heroin had been effected from the actual possession of accused which was confirmed as heroin by the Chemical Examiner’s Report—Accused on the
1999 YLR 1625 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUMTAZ SHAH VS STATE
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9—Bail, grant of—Two persons who were found carrying 45 Kgs. of Charas in motor car were arrested and case under Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 w
1999 YLR 1613 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD AKRAM ALIAS LADO VS THE STATE
—-S. 497—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9—Bail, grant of—An Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police admittedly had no jurisdiction to register a case under
1999 YLR 1405 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
NADIR KHAN VS STATE
—-Ss. 497 & 103—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4–Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 51 & 25—Bail–Quantity of heroin recovered from the accused being more than one kilogram, the offence was
1999 PCRLJ 830 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE VS STATE
—-S. 156(1)(8)—Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance (VI of 1995), Ss.6, 7, 8 & 9—Appreciation of evidence—Accused who was a Customs Clearing and Forwarding Agent had, in fact, presented a shipping bill and admittedly had not produced case prop
1999 PCRLJ 728 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
BUNER GUL VS STATE
—-(. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8 & 9(c)—Bail, grant of—Recovery of 43 kilograms of heroin from the accused by Anti-Narcotics Force—Accused was nabbed by Anti-Narcotics Force after a hot pursuit and hide and s
1999 MLD 2495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ASIF ALI ZARDARI, SENATOR VS S.H.O., POLICE STATION QILLA GUJJAR SINGH
Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 & 15—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Quashing of F. I. R. —Jurisdiction of High Court —F.I.R. was registered against petitioner and petitioner had neither joined -investigation, nor placed his version before Investigation Agency–Interference of High Court in investigation conducted by police—Scope—High Court interfered in the matter where prosecution was launched mala fide and no case on the face of record was made out—Constitutional petition being premature was not maintainable.
1997 PLD 69 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
KHAUDAI DAD VS THE STATE
—-Arts. 3 & 4—Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance (VI of 1995), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9—Repeal by implication—When not permissible—Articles 3 & 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Control of Narcotic Su