RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^index\.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L] RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^index\.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L] Section 20 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 - LawSite.today

Section 20 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997

Section 20 : Power to issue warrants

 

2023  PLD  168   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ZIA-UR-REHMAN VS State

S.497—Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019), Ss. 11-C, 2(e), 27,28, 29 & 59—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 20, 21, 22—Possession of 3000 grams of ICE—Bail, refusal of—Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant—“Authorized officer” (in terms of the S. 28 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 )—Scope—Assistant Sub-Inspector recovered six (06) packets of ICE, each weighing 500 grams, lying in vehicle being driven by the petitioner/ accused—Contention of the petitioner/accused was that to effect recovery an Assistant Sub-Inspector was not an “authorized officer” in terms of the S. 28 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019—Validity—Under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (‘the Act 1997’), an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector was authorized to make search, seizure or arrest etc., meanwhile the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 (‘the Act 2019’) had been promulgated and as per S. 59 of the Act 2019, the Act 1997 to the extent of cultivation, possession, selling, purchasing, delivery and transportation etc within Province, to the extent of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was repealed—Regarding “power to entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant”, S. 28 of the Act, 2019 was analogous to a great extent with S. 21 of the Act 1997, with the exception that the words “authorized officer” had been mentioned in S. 28 of the Act 2019 whereas S. 21 of the Act 1997 stipulated “an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police)—Section 2(e)(ii) of the Act, 2019 had defined an “authorized Officer” as a police officer/official not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, authorized by the Regional Police Officer—Although, in the present case, recovery had been effected by an Assistant Sub-Inspector, however, Ss. 20 to 22 of the Act, 1997 were directory in nature—Thus cumulative effect of said provisions mentioned in the Act, 1997 as well as the Act, 2019, the power to entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector, if made, would not vitiate the case nor the same could be made a ground for the grant of bail—Petitioner had been arrested red-handed and recovery of huge quantity of ICE had been affected from the vehicle being driven by him who, at the relevant time, was all alone in the said vehicle—Petitioner could not dispute his conscious knowledge regarding concealment/presence of the narcotic substance in the vehicle—Relevant page of the concerned register showed the assurance of safe custody of the samples (case property )which were separated from all the packets and were sent for chemical analysis—Report of FSL had confirmed the said samples as “Methamphetamine” (i.e. ICE)—No mala fide, ill-will or grudge had been shown against the police for falsely involving the petitioner in the present case nor it was possible for the police to plant such a huge quantity of ICE which was an expensive drug—Record prima facie connected the petitioner/accused with the commission of the offence punishment whereof fell within the prohibitory of section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, disentitling him to the concession of bail—Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

2022  SCMR  1450   SUPREME-COURT

Syed ZULFIQAR SHAH VS State

  1. 497—Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019), Ss. 9(d) & 27—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 20—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)—Sale of charas (narcotic)—Bail, refusal of—Raid conducted at a dwelling house without a search warrant—Directory nature of section 27 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 (‘the 2019 Act’)—Whether non-compliance with section 27 of the 2019 Act would render the recovery of narcotics as inadmissible—Held, that provisions of section 27 of the 2019 Act, which are identical to the provisions of section 20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (‘the 1997 Act’), are also directory in nature, and their noncompliance though may entail departmental disciplinary action or penal action or both against the delinquent police official, but do not affect the admissibility of the fact of recovery of the narcotics in evidence before the Trial Court—Where a warrant was not obtained in a case within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., it was not a sufficient ground to grant bail—Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and accused was refused bail.

2022  YLR  1163   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD FAISAL VS State

Ss. 20, 21 & 22—Power to issue warrants—Power of entry, seizure and arrest without warrant—Power to seizure and arrest in public places—Scope—Sections 20, 21 & 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are directory in nature and non-compliance with the same is not fatal to the prosecution case.

2020  PCrLJ  524   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALLAH RAKHA VS State

Ss. 20 & 21—Power to issue warrants—Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant—Scope—Section 20, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 empowers a Special Court to issue search warrant of any building, etc where it believes that narcotics has been kept or concealed—Section 21, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 empowers a police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector to search any building, etc without warrant in which he has the information of keeping or concealing any narcotics and a warrant of search cannot be obtained without affording the person an opportunity of concealment of evidence—Said officer could seize such narcotics.

2020  PCrLJ  524   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALLAH RAKHA VS State

Ss. 20, 21 & 27—Police Rules, 1934, R. 22.18—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A—Power to issue warrants, power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant, disposal of seized articles, custody of case property—Fair trial—Scope—Police officer/Investigating officer is required to forward the articles seized under section 20, 21 or 27 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 or under other enabling provisions of law immediately to the officer in charge of the police station, who in turn under Rule 22.18(2), Police Rules, 1934 shall keep such recovered property in store-room or make other suitable arrangements for its safe custody against entries to be made in the relevant Register—Prosecution was duty bound to produce case property in court as it is the evidence, which has been collected during investigation and is being used against the accused to prove offence or as the corroborative piece of evidence—If the investigator is allowed to dispose of the same without any order of competent court, it would deprive the accused of his right to examine allegedly recovered property during trial—Act of investigator for not immediately forwarding the seized article to the officer in charge of the police station for safe custody/depositing the same in Maalkhana is flagrant violation of the relevant provisions of law thus depriving the accused “fair trial”, a Right guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution—Disposal of case property by means other than prescribed above causes serious damage to the prosecution case.

2020  PCrLJ  739   Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

ATTA ULLAH VS State

  1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9, 20, 21 & 25—Possession of narcotics—Bail, grant of—Further enquiry—Recovery of 1000 grams of Charas—Raiding party despite having prior information did not obtain search warrant from a competent court and conducted the raid at the house of the accused without showing circumstances to justify such raid—Although, S. 103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but said provision did not exempt the requirement of search warrant and prior permission for entry into the residential premises for the purpose of search—Special provisions of S. 25 or Ss. 20 & 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not as such permit violation of constitutional guarantees of privacy and dignity of man—Being a border line case in between clause “b” and clause “c” of S. 9 of the Act, required further inquiry to determine guilt of the accused—Accused was patient of hepatitis “B” as evident from the report of a diagnostic laboratory—Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

2018  YLR  2243   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KHALIL UR REHMAN alias HEERA VS State

S.497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 20, 21 & 25—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Accused who was in the Police custody in connection with a previously registered criminal case, allegedly led to the recovery of 2 Kilograms of charas from his house—According to the S.20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, search of a building, about which there were reasons to believe that narcotic drug, psychotropic substances, were being kept, was to be conducted under a warrant of search to be issued by the Special Court—Requirement of search warrant, could only be relaxed in circumstances mentioned in S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused being already in custody of Police in a previously registered criminal case, there was no possibility of the concealment or the removal of charas—Investigating Officer, in circumstances, should have obtained a search warrant in accordance with S.20 of the said Act—Said omission provided a valid ground for the grant of bail to the accused—No evidence was available on record to connect the accused with the house from where the recovery was made which aspect reasonably attracted the provisions of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.—Case against accused being of further inquiry, he was admitted to post arrest bail in circumstances.

2016  PCrLJ  275   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL HAFEEZ VS MAHMOOD AHMAD alias MOODA

Ss. 20, 21, 22, 26 & 72—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.154, 190, 195 & 476, Sched.II—Search, seizure and arrest of accused—Initiation of proceedings under S.26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—In the case, recovery having been effected from the personal search of accused, subsection (c) of S.26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 would be relevant for said purpose—Contention that S. 26, was not attracted to search proceedings conducted under S.22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was misconceived—Section 26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 prescribed a punishment with imprisonment for a term, which could extent to three years, and fine as well which could extent to twenty five thousands rupees, thus by virtue of Schedule II, Cr.P.C., the same was cognizable; and in terms of S. 154, Cr.P.C., FIR could be registered directly under said section, without adopting any other mode—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being special law, and having an overriding effect in terms of S.72 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 upon the general law i.e. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for initiating the proceedings under S.26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the court was not obliged to adopt the procedure provided under Ss. 190, 195 or 476, Cr.P.C.

2015  YLR  1440   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

IMRAN KHAN VS State

Ss. 497 & 537—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 20, 21 & 22—Bail, refusal of—Huge quantity of narcotics had been seized—No mala fide on the part of Police was shown—Accused was charged with heinous offence which fell within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Accused was not entitled to concession of bail—Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 pertained to raid only and was not applicable to the present case as Police Officials did not launch a raid—Apprehension of accused by Assistant Sub-Inspector was an irregularity which could be cured under S.537, Cr.P.C.—Provisions of Ss.20, 21 & 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 were directory in nature and non-compliance of the same would not be a ground for holding the trial conviction bad in the eyes of law—Bail application was dismissed.

2015  PCrLJ  235   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL QADIR VS State

Ss. 9(c), 20 & 21—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Recovery of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Private witnesses, non-association of—Benefit of doubt—Chemical (diazepam) weighing 248 kilograms was allegedly recovered from vehicle being driven by accused, who was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Trial Court—Validity—Prosecution did not associate any private witness of the area from where alleged recovery of chemical substance and arrest of accused was made on the basis of previous spy information in day time (4-00 p.m.) at a very thickly populated area—No explanation in such regard was made in F.I.R., memorandum of arrest, challan (investigation report), or in evidence of prosecution witnesses, who were all police officials, hence violated express provisions of Ss. 20 & 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, read with S.103, Cr.P.C.—Prosecution did not examine person on whose spy information, accused was allegedly transporting chemical substance (diazepam) in 10 drums in huge quantity i.e. 248 kilograms in vehicle, nor produced vehicle or its key before Trial Court as case property—Owner of vehicle was neither cited as prosecution witness nor his evidence was recorded to support their case or to establish any connection of accused either with vehicle or with chemical substance (diazepam), which was allegedly recovered from the car—Prosecution failed to establish its case against accused without reasonable doubt, whereas judgment passed by Trial Court suffered from legal defects, hence not sustainable in law—High Court set aside judgment passed by Trial Court and accused was acquitted of the charge—Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2014  MLD  777   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SALEEM VS State

  1. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 20—Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13—Possession of narcotic, power to issue warrants for search, possession of illegal weapons—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Police raid on basis of prior information—Non-obtaining of search warrants—Non-association of private witnesses from the locality—Effect—Police on basis of spy information raided house of accused and allegedly recovered illegal weapons, ammunition and narcotics—Despite prior information no search warrants under S. 20 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was obtained by the Inspector/Station House Officer before entering into the house of accused—Station House Officer who conducted the raid had not recorded grounds and reasons, as to why he avoided obtaining search warrants under S. 20 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Purpose of said section was to safeguard the right of privacy of a citizen, which should not be allowed to be violated at the whims of a police officer—Recovery was effected from accused on basis of prior information but no witness from the locality was associated with the recovery proceedings—Case required further inquiry and accused was released on bail, accordingly.

2012  YLR  794   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ATTA ULLAH VS State

Ss. 20 & 21—Search and  investigation—Authorized Officer under the law in exceptional cases in which search warrant could not be possibly obtained before conducting the raid, can proceed for conducting of raid without warrant, but such power cannot be allowed to be used in every case in normal circumstances.

2012  YLR  794   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ATTA ULLAH VS State

Ss. 9(c), 20 & 21—Appreciation of evidence—Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had categorically been excluded by S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Police Officials having no ill-will or personal grudge against the accused were competent witnesses—Police witnesses had furnished straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence—Huge quantity of “charas” could not be planted on accused by Police Officials from their own resources—Non-compliance of Ss.20 and 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in the peculiar circumstances of the case would not make the conviction of accused illegal—Narcotic was recovered not from a residential house but from a narcotic den—Spy information having been received after office hours, search warrants could not be obtained—Investigation of the case by CIA being an irregularity could not vitiate the whole trial entitling the accused to acquittal—Reader of Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of witnesses under his directions and not independently—Tampering of the parcels of recovered narcotic having not been agitated, mere delay in sending the same for chemical analysis was not favourable to accused—Samples were drawn from 264 rods of “charas”, each rod weighing ten grams, as such accused was found in possession of 2640 grams of “charas” and he had been rightly convicted and sentenced—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012  YLR  2617   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

BILAL VS State

  1. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 20—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13—Possession of narcotic, power to issue warrants for search, possession of illegal weapons—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Police on basis of spy information raided accused’s shop and allegedly recovered illegal weapons and ammunition and 5500 grams of charas—Police did not obtain search warrant within the meaning of S. 20 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, despite having prior information—Forensic report in respect of the recovered charas was not available and similarly record did not contain any Forensic report for the recovered arms to show that same were in workable condition or not—Case required further inquiry and accused was released on bail, accordingly.

2012  YLR  805   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

IBRAR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 20, 21 & 22—Search and investigation—Provisions of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory in nature, non-compliance thereof would not make the trial or conviction bad in the eyes of law.

2011  MLD  1819   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Haji ABDUL RAHIM VS State

Ss. 9(c), 20, 21 & 29—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)  Order  (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(e)—Possessing narcotics, prohibition of manufacturing and owning intoxicant and possessing unlicensed arms—Appreciation of evidence—Raid was conducted at odd hours of the night at about 10-15 P.M., there was no possibility of availing search warrants as emergency for the raid was mentioned in the F.I.R.—Even otherwise S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had empowered the officer to enter, search and arrest without warrants; and S.20 of the Act being directory in nature, its non-compliance could not be considered a strong ground for holding that the trial of accused was bad in the eye of law—Prosecution witnesses had throughout remained consistent and no contradictions were noticed in their statements with regard to the recovery of opium from the Baitak in presence and possession of accused—Presumption under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was that unless the contrary was proved, accused would be considered to have committed offence under the Act in respect of contraband—Accused, in the present case,  had failed to rebut said presumption—Defence, during the trial was wavering and was not consistent in its plea—Objection of the counsel for accused on the analysis report was also vague as the report was issued by Federal Government Analyst, who had received sealed parcel of suspected material—Charge against accused was not defective as urged by accused and no error or illegality was found in the same—Accused had failed to substantiate his plea that he had any dispute/quarrel with or had enmity with Officer of Anti-Narcotic Force—Defence plea proved to be sham and baseless and there was no possibility of false implication or foisting the contraband—Prosecution, in circumstances, had proved its case against accused up to the hilt with regard to recovery of 15.500 Kgs opium—Conviction awarded to accused by the Trial Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and no reason existed to interfere in the same.

2011  YLR  238   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABRAR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 20—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 14—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Entry into and search of house of accused was in sheer violation of fundament rights envisaged under Art.14 of the Constitution—-Search warrant issued by Judicial Magistrate, was immaterial, in circumstances—Version put forth by the prosecution that as per pointation of accused, search and recovery was made, was a frivolous pretext particularly when raid was conducted in pursuance to search warrant without fulfilling command of Constitution together with deviating from legal obligations—House in question was not in exclusive possession of accused, but other inmates of the house, too resided over there; it could not be presumed that the contraband was in exclusive possession of accused, especially when he had been acquitted of the charge qua recovery of Kalashnikov from the house in consequence of same raid—Samples of contraband were sent for chemical analysis after lapse of 19 days—Prosecution apart from other infirmities, could not prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt—Conviction and sentence awarded to accused vide impugned judgment and order of Special Court was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge and was set at liberty; in circumstances.

2011  YLR  238   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABRAR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 9(c), 20 & 21—Possession of narcotics—Power to issue warrant—Search warrant in the case was obtained from the court of Judicial Magistrate, whereby S.H.O. was authorized to conduct raid upon the house of accused—Raid was conducted after lapse of 15 days of issuance of search warrant—Validity—Under provisions of S.20 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, special court, alone could issue warrant for the search of any building, place, premises or conveyance in which it had reason to believe that contraband was kept or concealed—Magistrate, muchless Judicial Magistrate had not been invested with such powers—Said jurisdictional error could not be ignored—Before such an action was justified, the existence or otherwise of the power was to be ascertained so as to perform it within permissible limits failing which the very action together with super-structures built thereon would crumble—Police Officer though could have recourse to S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but that was subject to the condition that after forming a definite opinion that obtaining of search warrant would consume much time enabling accused to destroy or conceal evidence, then of course, the same could be resorted to, but in that eventuality, burden would lay upon the Police Officer to give plausible explanation in respect thereto—In normal circumstances, obtaining of search warrant could not be dispensed with nor Police Officer was given licence to transgress the authority of law as per his own desire tantamounting to clear cut departure from procedure prescribed under the law—Search warrant issued by Judicial Magistrate did not clothe the S.H.O. with an authority to enter and search the house of accused.

2011  PCrLJ  1953   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GADA ALI VS State

  1. 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.

2011  PCrLJ  1953   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GADA ALI VS State

Ss. 20 & 21—Power to issue warrants etc.—Nature and effect—Provisions  of  Ss. 20  and  21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, are not mandatory but only directory in nature and, therefore, strict non-adherence thereto is not fatal to prosecution case.

2011  PCrLJ  398   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

INAYATULLAH VS State

Ss. 20, 21 & 22—Nature of provisions of Ss.20, 21, 22, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Provisions of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 being directory, non compliance of the same would not make the conviction/trial bad in the eyes of law.

2011  PCrLJ  398   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

INAYATULLAH VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/9(c), 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22 & 25—Possession of narcotics—Bail, refusal of—Accused were arrested red-handed on the spot by the raiding party when they were taking out the narcotic drug from the secret cavity of the bus—No allegation of mala fide on the part of prosecution was levelled—No reason for foisting huge quantity of narcotics was conceivable—Objections raised by the accused as to non-compliance of Ss.20, 21 and 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and S.103, Cr.P.C. were misconceived in fact and law—Section 25 of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases—Failure to associate private witness would not vitiate proceeding under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Provisions of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 being directory, non-compliance of the same would not make the conviction bad in the eyes of law—Sufficient material was available against the accused for connecting them with the alleged offence; recovery had been effected from their joint possession—Accused, were not entitled to grant of bail—Application was dismissed.

2011  MLD  110   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN TAHIR VS State

Ss. 20, 21 & 22—Scope and application of Ss.20, 21, 22, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Provisions of Ss. 20, 21 and 22 of the Act being directory in nature, non-compliance of the same would not hold trial/conviction bad in the eyes of law.

2011  MLD  110   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN TAHIR VS State

Ss. 497, 103 & 94—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/9(c), 20, 21, 22 & 25—Possession of narcotics—Bail, refusal of—Second bail application was filed on the same grounds on which Trial Court had declined bail—Validity—No fresh ground was available to accused—Same points could not be raised in the garb of new developments—Mere filing of application for production of record relating to flight timings did not bring the case of accused within purview of further inquiry especially when Trial Court was examining evidence—Sufficient material was available on record to proceed against the accused whereas no previous enmity or mala fide against prosecution was alleged—Accused’s plea that non-association of private witnesses during raid amounted to non-compliance of Ss.20, 21 and 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and S.103, Cr.P.C. was misconceived in fact and law—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded application of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 being directory in nature and non-compliance of the same would not hold trial/conviction bad in the eyes of law—Accused could not make out a case of second application on fresh grounds for grant of bail; his application was dismissed.

2011  PLD  62   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL ZAHIR alias ZAHIR SHAH VS State

Ss. 9(c), 20, 21 & 22—Recovery of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence—Quantum—Minor discrepancies—Effect—False implication—Non-obtaining of search warrant—On arrest of one accused small quantity of heroin was recovered from him and on his pointation 7 kilograms of heroin was recovered from co-accused—Trial Court convicted both the accused for possessing 7 kilograms of heroin and were sentenced to seven years of imprisonment—Plea raised by accused was that raid was conducted without obtaining search warrant—Validity—Evidence of complainant was corroborated by evidence of two recovery witnesses, whose evidence also got support from F.I.R., arrest of accused, recovery of narcotics and report of Chemical Analyzer, which was positive—Some discrepancies and contradictions appeared in evidence of prosecution witnesses but the same did not appear to be of such nature to vitiate trial or create doubt in prosecution case, as the evidence adduced by prosecution was consistent on material particulars and inspired confidence—Defence of accused that they were falsely implicated in the case was not substantiated by relevant evidence as huge quantity of heroin could not be planted upon accused in absence of any enmity or dispute—Provisions of Ss. 20, 21 and 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were directory in nature, therefore, non-compliance thereof would not be a ground for holding trial to be bad in law—Evidence adduced during trial was properly appreciated by Trial Court and the same did not warrant any interference by High Court—On the basis of material brought on record of Trial Court, both the accused were rightly found guilty and were accordingly convicted—Sentence awarded to the accused from whose possession 7 kilograms of heroin was recovered was maintained by High Court but the accused from whose possession only small quantity was recovered, his sentence was reduced under S.9 (b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to three years’ imprisonment—Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2009  MLD  1230   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GUL BADSHAH VS State

Ss. 20 & 21—Search and investigation—Nature and scope—Provisions of Ss.20 and 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, are not mandatory, but directory in nature and non-observation thereof would not vitiate the trial.

2009  MLD  878   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD NADIM VS State

Ss. 20, 21 & 22—Nature and scope of Ss.20, 21, 22, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997)—Provisions of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of the Act, are directory in nature and non-observance thereof would hardly be a ground for holding the trial or conviction as bad in law.

2008  PLD  376   SUPREME-COURT

ARSHAD MAHMOOD VS State

Ss. 20, 21 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.441 & 442—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.14—House search and arrest by Magistrate or other agencies in absence of search warrant—Scope—Special provision relating to search and arrest under Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 never exempted requirement of search warrant and prior permission for entry into residential premises for purpose of search for same was not inconsistent with the provisions of Cr.P.C. or the Constitution—Purpose of search warrant was to maintain privacy of house—Magistrate was neither authorized to enter into premises without due process of law or permission of inmates nor was supposed to exercise his authority of law in any manner he liked—Association of Magistrate in raiding party would be immaterial, where house was raided in disregard to law and in violation of fundamental right of privacy—Public functionaries failing to strictly follow law and observe privacy of house of a citizen could be proceeded against for criminal trespass and damages in their individual capacity—Principles.

2008  PLD  376   SUPREME-COURT

ARSHAD MAHMOOD VS State

Ss. 20, 21 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 14—House search in absence of search warrant—Scope—Police and such other agencies did not have unlimited powers to make search of house of a person and disturb his privacy and dignity in violation of mandate of the Constitution—Police and such other agencies without satisfying requirement of law could not enter into residential premises without search warrant.

2008  PLD  376   SUPREME-COURT

ARSHAD MAHMOOD VS State

Ss. 9(c) 20, 21 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 14—Reappraisal of evidence-Conviction and sentence awarded to accused for recovery of Charas lying in courtyard of house in his absence without search warrant—Validity—Not proved on record that such house was in exclusive possession of accused—Co-accused, who was arrested while present in courtyard, had been acquitted from the charge—Such recovery, in absence of accused, would not give rise to a legitimate presumption of his possession and guilt—Notwithstanding special provisions of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, prosecution was under heavy burden to prove possession of narcotics by accused through direct evidence—No one could be subjected to rigour of penal law nearly on basis of presumption without fulfilling essential requirement of law and command of the Constitution—Conviction and sentence awarded to accused was set aside in circumstances.

2008  SCMR  1254   SUPREME-COURT

ZAFAR VS State

Ss. 20, 21 & 22—Seizure and arrest—Non-compliance of mandatory provisions—Effect—Provisions of Ss.20, 21 & 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory, non-compliance thereof would not be a ground for holding trial/conviction bad in the eyes of law.

2008  MLD  1589   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

REHMAT ZAMAN VS State

  1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 20—Bail, grant of—Search warrant in the case was issued by the Judicial Magistrate, whereas under the law search had to be conducted strictly in accordance with S.20 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and it was the Special Court, which had to issue the search warrant—Any violation of said provision of law would make the search illegal—Court of law had to implement the law as it was—Site plan would show that the place wherefrom the alleged recovery was made, was a dewelling house surrounded by abadi, but none from the public had been associated with the recovery proceedings—Prosecution had annexed with the record two F.I.Rs and on the strength of said F.I.Rs. State Counsel argued that accused being previously involved in selling narcotics was not entitled to the concession of .bail—Validity—Mere producing F.I.R. against accused would not disentitle accused to the concession of bail as the prosecution had to prove the guilt of accused in a court of competent jurisdiction—Accused, was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

2007  YLR  904   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SABIR KHAN VS State

—-Ss. 9, 20 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Provisions of S.103, Cr. P. C. had been excluded under the provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Provisions of S.20 of the Act were dir

2007  PCRLJ  1677   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

GULBAR KHAN VS State

—-Ss. 9(c), 20, 21, 22 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103 & 537—Spy information—Opium weighing 1100 grams was recovered on the pointation of accused from the house which belonged to his host—Search warrant under Ss.20, 21 & 22 of C

2006  YLR  2243   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AKHTAR-UL-ISLAM VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 20, 21 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.103—Appreciation of evidence—Neither a search warrant was obtained nor a lady constable was taken to the house of accused for the purpose of raid—Provisions of S.103, Cr. P. C. though

2006  YLR  1111   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

FAIZULLAH VS State

–S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b)(c), 20 & 21—Bail, refusal of-Recovery of three plastic bags containing heroin, charas, bhang and opium weighing 30 grams, 600 grams, 800 grams and 50 grams respectively—Non­ associat

2006  YLR  340   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUNIR KHAN VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 20 & 25—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Two recovery witnesses seemed to be independent witnesses having no reason to false

2006  PCRLJ  988   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AMJAD VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 20 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Non-associating two respectable persons of locality in search and recovery proceedings—Effect—Objection with regard to non-compliance of provisions of S.103

2006  PCRLJ  316   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

FIDA MUHAMMAD VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 20, 21 & 22—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.516-A & 537—Appreciation of evidence—Non-obtaining of warrant and non-issuance of notice to accused before destruction of contraband Charas—Legality—Accused had contended that despi

2006  MLD  1501   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AZIZ KHAN VS State

—Ss. 9 & 20—Appreciation of evidence—Only defence of accused was that discrepancies were appearing in the case and that contraband item was not recovered from his personal possession and that accused in other cases whose statement was recorded on th

2006  YLR  2925   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GULSHAN ARA VS State

—S.20—Power to issue warrants—Nature of the provisions—Provisions of 5.20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, are directory in nature and compliance thereof cannot be urged as a strong ground holding that the trial was bad in the eye

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  PLD  698   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

KHAN BACHA VS State

–Ss. 20, 21, 22, 23 & 25—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.49—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 47, 51, 52, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 & 105-‘Search’ and `inspection’—Distinction and connotation—Types of searches—Mashir—M

2005  YLR  3326   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

RASHID KHAN VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 20 & 21—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13—Appreciation of evidence—Investigating officer on receipt of information conducted raid on the house of accused and recovered contraband Charas along with arms and ammunitions from

2005  PCRLJ  76   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

RAEES KHAN VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9(b), 20 & 21—Appreciation of evidence—Inspector, who had conducted raid, had admitted that no one from adjoining houses was associated in investigation, search and seizure and for such omission no reason had been shown in the case diaries—I

2004  PLD  394   SUPREME-COURT

Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ VS KARL JOHN JOSEPH—Petitioner

—-S 20—Issuance of search warrants—Provisions of S.20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory in nature, non-compliance thereof cannot be considered a strong ground for making the trial of accused bad in the eye of law.

2004  PLD  246   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mian GUL BACHA KHAN VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9, 20, 21, 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103–Appreciation of evidence—Huge quantity of foreign-made Charas weighing 2870 Kilograms having been recovered in the case, it could not be believed that such a large quantity of contraban

2004  PLD  115   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SHAMSHADA VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9(c), 20 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103–Appreciation of evidence—Recovery proceedings—Explanation offered by one of the accused persons for his false implication in offence, was not plausible as he had not been able to expl

2004  PLD  681   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

KHAN MUHAMMAD VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9(c), 20 & 21—Appreciation of evidence—Memo. of the place of incident was not prepared—Ownership of the place of recovery of narcotics was not established—Prosecution evidence was contradictory in material particulars qua the contents of t

2003  SCMR  881   SUPREME-COURT

STATE VS HEMJOO

—-Ss. 20 & 21—Search—Combined study of Ss. 20 & 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would show that only in exceptional cases in which the search warrant cannot possibly be obtained before conducting the raid, an Officer authorized i

2003  PCRLJ  1392   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ZAR GUL VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9, 20, 21 & 25—Search proceedings—Accused from whom more than 2 Kgs. Charas had allegedly been recovered had contended that despite having ample opportunity to procure and cite two witnesses from the public, no effort was made by raiding offic

2003  PCRLJ  470   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NEK MUHAMMAD VS THE STATE

—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 20—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979). Arts.3/4–Bail—Accused had contended that mandatory provisions of S.20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had be

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  1506   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

RAHIM DAD VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9, 20 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103–Appreciation of evidence—Contention of accused was that provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had seriously been violated in the case on account of non-association of private persons to witness .re

2001  SCMR  36   SUPREME-COURT

FIDA JAN VS THE STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S. 20—Search warrants, requirement of—Scope—Provisions of S.20 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 does not place obligation upon Investigating Agency to obtain search warrants from the Special Judge before conducting a raid. —-S. 20—Non-compliance of provisions of S.20 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Effect—Provisions of S.20 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were directory in nature, therefore, its noncompliance could not be considered a strong ground for holding that the trial of the accused was bad in the eye of law.

2001  PLD  152   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NASRULLAH VS THE STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 & 72—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.156(2)—Entry, search, seizure or arrest—Provisions of Ss.21, 22 & 26, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are mandatory in nature and observance thereof would be imperative to the validity of entry, search, seizure and arrest and non-compliance therewith would invalidate the whole action from the inception to the end—Officers below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police were just a non-entity for the purposes of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Contention that, if an officer not empowered or authorised had made entry, search, seizure or arrest, same could be regularized by invoking the provisions of S.156(2), Cr.P.C. was, repelled–Principles.

2000  PCRLJ  745   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALI MUHAMMAD  VS STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 498—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9, 12, 13, 20 & 21—Bail, grant of—Accused and co-accused at the relevant time were travelling in a car which on its stoppage was found containing five Kgs. of Charas in packet

1999  YLR  217   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

JAVED ULLAH  VS STATE

—-Ss.497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 20–Bail, grant of—Police while raiding the house of the accused had not complied with the provisions of 5.103, Cr. P. C., read with S.20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances A

1999  PCRLJ  1033   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ASLAM  VS STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 20 & 21—Search warrant—Search warrant and seizure proceedings–Obtaining a search warrant was a rule and exercise of unusual power to effect search or arrest without warrant an exception—Conscious application of mind needed on part of officer to effect search or arrest without a warrant as to possibilities of escape or concealment of evidence on part of offender–Provisions of S.21(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 required that before or immediately after taking any action under S.21(1) of said Act, officer concerned must record grounds and the basis of his information and proposed action and forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate superiors—Such safeguard was provided to prevent abuse of extraordinary powers.

1998  PCRLJ  832   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

RAFIULLAH VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL

—-Ss. 561-A & 169—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34—Discharge of accused on the basis of defence evidence—Validity—Investigating Officer not only did not mention name of accused in either of the columns of challan, but had discharged him under

1998  PCRLJ  828   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL, SUB-INSPECTOR POLICE, DISTRICT KEHARI MITROO

—-Ss. 561-A & 156(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.20, 21, 34, 35 & 47—Quashing of F.I.R.—F,I.R. recorded against accused by Sub-Inspector of Police was sought to be quashed on ground that according to Notification S.R.0. 33

 

Shopping Cart
× How can I help you?