Section 18 : Limit of fine, etc.
2017 PCrLJN 32 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NASEER AHMAD alias MATTO VS State
Ss. 9(c), 15, 18, 21 & 36—S.R.O. 656(I)/2004 dated 2-8-2004—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Presence of prosecution witness at the time of recovery was established—Said witness remained firm on all aspects of the recovery proceedings—Sub-Inspector of Police, who appeared as prosecution witness, completely deposed in line with the other prosecution witnesses; and his evidence could not be shattered in any way—Report of Chemical Examiner, also affirmed that recovered substance was “charas”—Accused admitted that none of the officials, had any previous enmity—No convincing evidence was led by accused which could shatter case of prosecution—Prosecution had fully complied with the mandate of S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Investigation in the case was conducted strictly in accordance with the mode provided under the law—No legal impediment existed in the way of Police Officer, who was a complainant of the case and also acted as an Investigating Officer, simultaneously, unless accused established some prejudice as a consequence of such dual capacity—Quantum of punishment, was dependent upon the quantity of the recovered substance, and if the quantity would exceed ten Kilograms, the punishment would not be less than imprisonment for life—Eleven Kilograms charas having been recovered from accused and two kilograms charas have been recovered from co-accused, accused could not be awarded punishment less than imprisonment for life—Present was not the only case against accused, but he was involved in nine other cases relating to the same offence—Prosecution had fully proved its case against accused; and there was no doubt left with regard to guilt of accused—Trial Court had committed no illegality, while convicting accused—Accused having failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity, requiring interference of High Court, judgment of the Trial Court was maintained, in circumstances.
2006 PCRLJ 1431 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS State
—Ss. 9(B)(c) & 18—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Two F.I.Rs. were registered against accused in same Police Station; in first F.I.R. it was alleged that accused was found in possession of 100 grams of Charas and 225 grams of opium
2002 PCRLJ 1523 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAQ NAWAZ AKHTAR VS THE STATE
—-S. 497(2)—National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Ss.9 & 18(g)—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Prosecution was unable to place any material before Court to make out a prima facie case of indulgence in corruption or corrupt practice b