Section 21 : Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant
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.
2012 MLD 770 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. NASREEN BIBI VS State
- 21—Entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant—Dispensation of—Requirement to obtain search warrant can be dispensed with in cases where a quick action is required to be taken and it would be difficult to obtain search warrant where due to paucity of time apprehension of narcotics being removed or culprits having chance to escape are eminent.
2012 MLD 770 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. NASREEN BIBI VS State
Ss. 9(c), 21 & 2(t), (v), (w)—Appreciation of evidence—Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was fully competent, in given circumstances, to conduct raid and seize the narcotics—Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory in nature, any violation thereof was not fatal to prosecution case—Requirement to obtain search warrant could be dispensed with where a quick action was required to be taken—Delay in sending the recovered narcotic substance to Chemical Examiner for analysis could not be fatal in the absence of an objection regarding the same having been tampered with—Poppy straw and poppy heads included all parts of the poppy plant—“Phakki” (post) recovered from the accused was a narcotic substance as defined in Ss.2(t), 2(v) & 2(w) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Law did not require sending the whole narcotic substance to Chemical Examiner, only a small quantity thereof would be enough to prove that the entire recovered material was contraband—Both the recovery witnesses were consistent on the point of time, date and place of raid, search, recovery of “post” from the accused, preparation of sample and its dispatch to the Office of Chemical Examiner—Investigating Officer had clarified that persons present at the place of recovery had refused to become witnesses in the case—Police Officials were as good witnesses as public witnesses, until and unless defence would establish some specific enmity or malice against them—Non-association of any witness from public, therefore, was not fatal to prosecution case—Report of Chemical Examiner was positive—Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances.
2011 YLR 29 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
GHULAM JALLANI VS State
Ss. 9(c), 21 & 22—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Accused contended that neither the Investigating Officer was competent to investigate the case nor did he visit the place of occurrence—Validity—Naib Risaldar was duly ordered by the Judicial Magistrate to conduct the proceedings which did not suffer from any illegality unless maid fide of the Investigating Officer was established—No mala fide was established against the prosecution or Investigating Officer—Accused did not deny the ownership of the vehicle or the drums from which the contraband material was recovered—Accused had not stated that he was transporting the said drums to deliver the same to anyone—Material recovered from and articles owned by the accused established that he was in conscious possession of the same—No material contradiction was pointed out in prosecution case—Trial Court rightly assessed the material on record—Sentence awarded to the accused was commensurate with the seriousness of his offence—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2011 PCrLJ 1899 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
KHALIQUE DAD alias JAN AGHA VS State
Ss. 9(c), 21 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Possessing contraband narcotics— Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution had successfully established the recovery of contraband material from the house of accused—Objection that the recovery had been made in violation of the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. as no search warrants had been taken in the matter, gave no help to accused—Under the provisions of S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, application of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded—Neglecting provisions of S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which were directory in nature and not mandatory, would not throw the entire proceedings of recovery out of consideration, particularly when none from the raiding party had been shown having any enmity against accused—No specific or significant contradiction was noticed in the statements of prosecution witnesses, which could discredit or disbelieve their evidence—Prosecution evidence was in consonance, corroboratory and had no defect at all—No dent had been caused to the evidence of prosecution witnesses from defence side—No misreading and non-reading of evidence was found in the case—No defect or lacuna having been noticed in the judgment of the court below, same could not be interfered with, in circumstances.
2011 PCrLJ 31 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
SHABIR AHMED VS State
Ss. 9(c), 21, 22 & 23—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Both the accused were driving the vehicle from which the narcotic was recovered—Accused contended that an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector could not effect recovery under Ss.21, 22 and 23 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—Naib Risaldar committed no fault or irregularity vitiating the proceedings as he acted in the absence of the Risaldar with the permission of the Judicial Magistrate—Any irregularity in the course of investigation would not vitiate later proceeding unless such irregularity had the effect of prejudicing the case of any of the parties especially when accused failed to establish the mala fide of the Investigating Officer—Witnesses of recovery corroborated the evidence without any contradiction in their statements—Material recovered though was not sealed and samples were not taken on the spot yet the recovery of the material was established—Accused’s presence in the vehicle carrying the narcotic substance and his apprehension from the spot was not denied by him—Burden lay on the accused to establish that he was boarding the vehicle as a hitchhiker and had nothing to do with the material recovered from the vehicle—Both the present accused and the co-accused driving the vehicle belonged to the same locality—Material on record connected the accused with the commission of the offence—Trial Court appreciated the evidence correctly—No interference was warranted by the High Court—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
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 & 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 696 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
THE STATE through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar VS GULLA
Ss. 9 & 21—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3/4—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)–Possession of narcotics—Appeal against acquittal—Appreciation of evidence—Accused had been acquitted on the ground that under the Police Order, 2002, the complainant was not incharge of investigation, but despite that he carried out the same, which was illegal and its benefit was to be given to accused—Validity—Finding of the Trial Court was against the law for the reason that Police Order, 2002 was not applicable to the case and provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 were applicable thereto—According to S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police or equivalent would carry investigation in such a case—In the present case, Police Order, 2002 would have no role to play—Finding of the Trial Court, was set aside, in circumstances.
2011 MLD 958 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD SIRAJ VS State
- 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 21—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Arrest of accused had been effected by Assistant Sub-Inspector of concerned Police Station, whereas it was specifically mentioned in S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, that arrest without warrant would not be effected by a Police Officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector—-Narcotics, as per contents of F.I.R. were concealed in the secret cavity i.e. Petrol tank; and the material collected by the prosecution, did not ipso facto show that accused had conscious knowledge, about the said concealment of narcotics—Accused was merely travelling in the car in question, without having the conscious knowledge of the narcotics; and without having any connection with the ownership of said car—Accused, in circumstances, could not be blindly held responsible for anything concealed in the secret cavity, particularly in the absence of any proof of his ownership pertaining to the said car—Prima facie there existed no material to connect accused with the commission of offence in clear cut mariner—Investigation of the case had been completed; and it would serve no useful purpose if accused was any more retained in the lock up—Accused having made out a case of further inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
2011 MLD 487 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
GHADEER HAIDER VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 21—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13—Possession of narcotics and arms—Bail, grant of—Investigating Officer raided the store belonging to accused without obtaining search warrant under S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Alleged recovery was neither made from the possession of accused nor on his pointation and was not effected in the presence of two respectable persons belonging to the same locality as required under S.103, Cr.P.C.—No statement of the test purchaser was recorded and no detail of the store and godown was provided in the recovery memo—Accused who was of tender age of about 17-1/2 years, could claim the concession of bail under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000—Accused had no previous record of involvement in such like cases—Case of accused having gone out of prohibition clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., accused was entitled to the grant of bail—Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.
2011 PCrLJ 1953 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GADA ALI VS State
- 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.
2010 YLR 2005 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PERVAIZ KHAN VS State
S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9(c) & 21—Possession of narcotic —Bail, refusal of—Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was applicable to cases of recovery effected from a building, place, premises or conveyance and not to the recovery of narcotics from the personal search of a person, as in the present case–Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, therefore, was competent to search and arrest the accused—“Charas” weighing 1200 grams having been recovered from the accused, his case was not a borderline case so as to fall within the ambit of section 9(b) of the said Act, because amount exceeding the prescribed limit of 1000 grants by 20% could not be treated as marginal, although the quantity of narcotics exceeding upto 10% of the prescribed limit might be treated as a marginal case—Small but reasonable quantity of 10 grams “Charas” had been taken as sample from the packet recovered from the accused for sending to Chemical Examiner for analysis, which did not suffer from any wrong, because the entire quantity was not required to be sent for such purpose—Recovery of narcotics having been effected from the accused by the police at midnight, association of any private person with the recovery proceedÂings was not possible, as explained in the F.I.R. itself—Bail was declined to accused in circumstances.
2010 YLR 2005 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PERVAIZ KHAN VS State
S.21—Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant—Scope—Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, covers only the cases where the narcotic is kept or concealed in a building, place, premises or conveyance—Section 21 is not applicable where the narcotic is recovered on personal search of a person.
2010 PCrLJ 940 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9 & 21—Possessing narcotics—Ball, refusal of—Prima facie, conditions laid down in subsection (1) of S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 were clearly made out—In the present case the secret information indicated that there was an imminent movement of narcotic substances and prima facie, in such circumstances the complainant could and did form an opinion that imminent action was necessary; and that any delay could enable the accused to either escape or otherwise deal with the narcotic substances in such a manner as would take them beyond the purview of the law enforcement agencies—Since there was no allegation of any enmity between the Anti Narcotic Force party which conducted the raid and searched the premises where accused was found with a large quantity of narcotics, there did not appear prima facie to be any basis for the claim put forward by accused that the drugs were foisted on accused and his brother—Prosecution had succeeded in making out a reasonable case which prima facie connected accused with the possession of the huge quantity of narcotic substances, which had constituted an offence under S.6 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused having failed to make out a case for grant of bail, his bail application was dismissed.
2009 SCMR 291 SUPREME-COURT
State VS ABDALI SHAH
Ss. 21 & 9(c)—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.537—Investigation by an unauthorized officer is an irregularity—Investigation carried out in the case by an officer not authorized to do so is merely an irregularity, which is curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.
2009 SCMR 291 SUPREME-COURT
State VS ABDALI SHAH
Ss. 497(5) & 537—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 21—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Bail, cancellation—Huge quantity of 52 Kgs. of “Charas” was allegedly recovered from the dickey of the taxi of the accused—Police could not possibly foist such a huge quantity of “Charas” upon the accused—High Court had relied heavily upon the technical aspect of the seizure and arrest which was misconceived—Accused was apprehended by police during normal patrol duty and no raid was carried out by the police personnel, and as such S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was not applicable—Even otherwise, policy party could not be expected to go in search of the officer entitled to arrest the accused being an A.S.-I., on his apprehension—At the most this was an irregularity which was curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.—Second ground weighing with High Court that the investigation was not carried out by an official authorized to do so, was also devoid of substance, as no prejudice had been caused to accused by such investigation and it was merely an irregularity curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.—Bail allowed to accused was cancelled in circumstances.
2009 PCrLJ 840 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Malik KHALID HUSSAIN VS State
- 21—Search and investigation—Non-observance of the provisions—Effect—Search, arrest of accused and investigation conducted in the case by an incompetent or unauthorized Police Officer may not stand vitiated, as S.156(2), Cr.P.C. protects his actions—No penalty having been provided by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for non-observance of the provisions of S.21 thereof, transforming an otherwise directory provision into a mandatory one, such a defect in the search, arrest and investigation would only be an irregularity and not an illegality vitiating the entire proceedings.
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.
2009 YLR 2162 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHAHZAD HUSSAIN VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 21-Bail, refusal of—In the F.I.R. though words “memo. of recovery/arrest” had not been mentioned, but all the details had been mentioned—Arrest of accused though was in violation of S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but provisions of S.21 were directory and not mandatory in nature and departure from the same in case of heinous offences could be treated as an irregularity and not an illegality or fatal to the prosecution—Such was not a serious defect, which would vitiate the trial—Sample was taken from one packet weighing “one kilogram “—Case of at least one kilogram Charas, at that stage was prima facie proof against accused as the sample’ represented-the entire packet and the same was not found to be illegal—Prosecution witnesses when examined at the trial were not even suggested by accused that remaining property produced in the Court was not the same or that the same had been tampered with—Bail could not be granted to accused, in circumstances.
2009 PCrLJ 254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
IMTIAZ JAWED VS State
Ss. 516-A & 439–Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.7/9(c), 32, 21, 22 & 74–Custody of car on Superdari—Any vehicle used in carrying a narcotic drug was liable to confiscation, except where its owner did not know that the offence was being or was to be committed, as provided under section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and Ss.21 & 22 thereof had authorized seizure of such vehicle—Proviso to S.74 of the said Act had barred the giving of a vehicle used in transportation of a narcotic drug to the accused or any of his associates or relatives or any private individual, till the conclusion of the case—Presently, material available on record had overwhelmingly showed involvement of accused who was caught red handed in the commission of the offence, while transporting huge quantity of heroin in his car and he could not be said to have no knowledge about the car being used in the transportation of heroin—Order of Trial Court refusing to give custody of the car to the accused was upheld being unexceptionable—Revision petition had no merits and was dismissed accordingly.
2009 PCrLJ 102 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AWAL KHAN VS State
- 497–Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 21—Bail, grant of—Accused being already in custody in some other case, led to the recovery of one hand bag containing 2.5 Kgs. of `Charas’ in big and small pieces—F.I.R. and the Mashirnama did not show that the case property and the sample taken from the same were weighed and sealed at the spot—Even the place of recovery was mentioned in the F.I.R.—Despite information in advance, no private person was associated as Mashir with recovery proceedings and S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had been violated—Sample of ten grams had been taken from the small piece of `Charas’ weighing 500 grams and case against accused, therefore, certainly did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.—Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
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 YLR 2538 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ARIF VS State
Ss.9(c), 21 & 22—Investigation by complainant—Not barred—Complainant is not debarred from investigating the case himself unless and until some malice or mala fide on his part is shown.
2008 YLR 1562 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS VS State
Ss.9(b), 21 & 22—Investigation conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Pollic—Validity—Police Officer of the rank of an A.S.-I. had raided the accused, recovered the narcotic substance, prepared the recovery memo. and, thus, had practically conducted the entire investigation—Investigations carried out by an A.S.-I. were violative of Ss.21 and 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, because an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector of. Police could not seize in any public place and had no authority to search and arrest a person for recovery of narcotics—Said proceedings carried out by Assistant Sub-Inspector of police and recovery memos prepared by him had no legal force and could not lead to conviction—Prosecution had failed to prove its case in a. legal manner—Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
2008 PCrLJ 751 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Sh. ZAHID JAVED VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 21 & 25—Bail, refusal of—Contention of the counsel for accused that case against accused ought to be disbelieved merely for the reason that raid had been conducted by an A.S.-I. in violation of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had no merit—F.I.R. itself reveals that after conducting raid and effecting recovery of the contraband, the matter had been referred to the Incharge Investigation of the concerned police station for further investigation—Provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, provided a complete answer to objection that while effecting recovery, provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had not been followed—Trial Court was to see as to why delay had been occasioned in dispatching the sealed parcels to the Chemical Examiner and what would be its effect—Contention of counsel for accused that C.I.A. personnel could not carry out a raid, was also devoid of any merit inasmuch as nothing was in law which stopped said personnel to enforce the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused stood involved in as many as sixteen criminal cases out of which at least one dozen were drug related cases—Bail was refused in circumstances.
2008 YLR 2080 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
JAN MUHAMMAD VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b) & 21—Bail, grant of—Complainant was Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who carried out the search of accused, recovered the case property and arrested accused, whereafter the F.I.R. was lodged by him—Validity—Under provisions of S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, it was pre-requisite that an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police or equivalent authorized in that behalf by the Federal Government or the Provincial Government, should take action regarding the alleged offence—Said mandatory provision of law had been violated by the complainant—Case being fit for grant of bail, accused was allowed bail, in circumstances.
2008 YLR 88 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF VS State
Ss.497, 54, 59 & 156(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9, 21 & 22—Bail, refusal of—Counsel for accused had stated that accused were searched and property was allegedly recovered by the complainant who being A.S.I. was not competent to do so in view of mandatory provisions of Ss.21 & 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Further contention of accused was that said provisions of law having been violated, accused were entitled to the concession of bail—Validity—Cognizable offence was committed within the view of complainant who was Assistant Sub-Inspector of police—Apart from his own powers under S.54, Cr. P. C., said complainant could arrest accused under S.59, Cr. P. C. , even if he was not authorized to conduct the investigation or search under S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997–Accused were arrested on the spot–Complainant/A.S.-I. produced them at the Police Station, lodged the F.I.R. and then the investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector who was competent to investigate the case—No illegality in circumstances was committed in arresting accused and seizing the property–Even otherwise, if investigation was conducted by an unauthorized officer, then S.156(2), Cr. P. C. would protect such proceedings—When the case was challaned and after taking its cognizance by the court, the irregularity in the investigation, would not affect the trial which would not be vitiated—Case against accused was fully supported by the prosecution witnesses and was corroborated by the Chemical Analyzer’s report—Accused in circumstances were not entitled to the concession of bail.
2008 MLD 678 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABID HUSSAIN VS State
S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b) & 21—Bail, grant of—In the present, case S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was attracted wherein maximum punishment provided was seven years which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Under S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, Assistant Sub-Inspector was not empowered to detain or search accused as was done—Accused was+ granted bail, in circumstances.
2008 MLD 442 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD SHAHID CHIRAGO VS State
2008 PLD 57 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDALI SHAH VS State
- 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.619, 21 & 22—Police Order (22 of 2002), Arts.18, Proviso 4 & 155(c)(d)—Bail, grant of—No officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector, according to Ss. 21 & 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, could raid, search and arrest any person involved under the said Act and any action taken by such officer would make the proceedings null and void, as in the present case—Investigation of the case had been conducted, in violation of Arts. 18, Proviso 4 & 155 (c) & (d) of the Police Order, 2002—Mashirnama of arrest had been prepared at the place of incident which had been made doubtful by the memo. of recovery—No recovery had been effected from the person of accused, which had allegedly been effected from a Taxi and the same did not belong to accused—Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
2007 SCMR 393 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS and others VS Mst. PERVEEN alias MANO
—Ss. 21 & 22–Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.173—Arrest of accused and/or seizure of narcotics in violation of provisions of Ss.21 & 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Effect—Guilt or innocence of accused would not depend on qu
2007 SCMR 1671 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS THE STATR
—-Ss. 9(c) & 21—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—ReÂappraisal of evidence—Charas weighing 13 Kgs—Raid and search by Assistant Sub-Inspector—Search warrant, dispensing with—On spy information, Assistant Sub-Inspector conducted a r
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
2007 PCRLJ 1502 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE alias SHEEQA VS State
—Ss. 9(c), 21, 25 & 31—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution witnesses having no malice or enmity against the accused had supported recovery of 1010 grams “Charas” from him—Fake plantation of such quantity of “Charas” was not probable without any a
2007 YLR 1022 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD NOOR VS State
—S. 497, 54, 59 & 156(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9, 21 & 22—Bail, refusal of—Counsel for accused had contended that complainant who searched accused and allegedly recovered property from them being A.S.-I. of police
2006 PCRLJ 902 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
BALOCH KHAN VS State
—Ss. 9(c) & 21—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution had failed to prove that entire material recovered, was narcotics, but had been able to prove that two of the bundles recovered from the possession of each of accused, contained narcotics, weighing
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 PCRLJ 846 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
IQBAL KHAN VS State
–Ss. 9(c), 21, 25, 29, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.75—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution, in order to establish its case had produced two witnesses—Defence could not prove as to why police wo
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 PLD 74 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD DAUD VS State
–Ss. 9(c), 21, 22, 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103 & 537—Appreciation of evidence—Search and seizure proceedings—Prosecution had established factum of recovery beyond shadow of doubt—Arrest, seizure and investigation by an i
2006 YLR 2972 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- ASLAM VS State
–S. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b) & 21—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Case had been registered on the report of Assistant Sub-Inspector of police who prepared the recovery memo. and also recorded statements of a
2006 YLR 800 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALID HUSSAIN VS State
—Ss.9(c) & 21—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—NonÂconformity with the procedure as laid under S.21of the Control of Narcotic substances Act, 1997, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would amount to an irregularity which w
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 305 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD RIAZ VS State
-S. 497—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 21–ÂBail, grant of—Accused was in jail ever since his arrest—Investigation of case was almost complete and accused was n
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
2005 PCRLJ 568 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLAH DITTA VS State
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9, 21 & 25—Bail, grant of—Contention was that accused who was found in possession of two Kgs. of poppy-straws at the time of his arrest, was unaware of the fact whether poppy-straws wou
2005 MLD 1718 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State
—S.21–Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant—Nature of proceedings—Provisions of S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, are directory and not mandatory.
2005 PCrLJ 1998 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABU BAKAR VS State
—Ss. 9(b), 21 & 22—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.537-Violation of Ss.21 & 22 of the C.N.S. Act does not vitiate the trial—Arrest of accused by an officer below the rank of A.S.-I. in violation of the provisions of Ss.21 & 22 of the Control
2005 PLD 128 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TAJ WALI VS State
–Ss. 9(c) & 21—Appreciation of evidence—Mashirs and all prosecution witnesses had made improvements in their statements recorded by the Court as against the F.I.R. and those recorded under 5.161, Cr.P.C. on material aspects of the case—Such improve
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 YLR 1305 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AHMAD NAWAZ VS THE STATE
—-S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 21—Bail, grant of—No precise measurement being possible at the time of recovery, possibility that SO grams of “Charas ” might have been exaggerated could not be ruled out and the
2004 YLR 1303 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YASIN VS THE STATE
—-Ss.9(c), 21 & 22—Appreciation of evidence—Entire investigation in the case had been made by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who had recovered narcotic substances, made them into sealed parcels, prepared their sample sealed parcels and also draft
2004 PCRLJ 129 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Rana MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS D.I.-G.
—-Ss. 6, 9(c) & 21—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4/28—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.87—Reinvestigation of case—Proceedings against Police Officer—During pendency of trial against accused, father of accuse
2004 MLD 1859 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ARIF VS State
–S. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9 & 21—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Bail was, urged by accused on grounds; firstly that Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who had conducted the raid, recovered goods and conduc
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 1139 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
JAMEEL KHAN VS THE STATE
—-S.21—Contravention of provisions of S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Failure to conduct search in compliance with the provisions of S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, no doubt could result in release on bail and late
2003 YLR 1919 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAEED RASUL VS THE STATE
—-Ss.497, 103 & 156(2)—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b) & 21—Bail, grant of—Offence against the accused having been defined in two different statutes i.e. und
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 1429 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
JAVID GUL VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 103 & 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997). Ss. 9 & 21—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13–Bail, grant of—Further inquiry– -Nothing was on record to show that house wherefrom alleged recovery of contraband Ch
2002 PCRLJ 453 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAZAR HUSSAIN VS THE STATE
—Ss. 497, 103, 59, 154 & 156(2)—Control of Norcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b), 21, 25, 761 29 & 51—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4—Bail—Accused was allegedly apprehended red-handed by the police party
2002 PCRLJ 1086 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
IMDAD ALI JUNEJO VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 9 & 21—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A–Quashing of proceedings—Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had riot been strictly followed by the police in searching and arresting the accused and the same had been
2001 PLD 152 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
NASRULLAH VS THE STATE
—-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
2001 YLR 1847 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUMTAZ ALI VS STATE
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.21—Bail, grant of–F.I.R. was lodged against the accused by Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Police Station concerned whereas under S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997, an offi
2000 PCRLJ 1225 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
WARIS KHAN VS STATE
—-S. 497—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4–Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 21—Bail, grant of—No search warrant was obtained by S.H.O. before entering into house of the accused—Station House Of
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 591 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN VS STATE
—-S.497—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4 — Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9 & 21—Bail—A.S.I. in view of S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had no jurisdiction to register a cas
1999 PCRLJ 824 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
KHADIM HUSSAIN KHAN VS SARWAR JAN
Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-.S. 21—Provisions of S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 being directory and not mandatory in nature, departure from the same in cases of heinous offences could be treated as an irregularity and not an illegality fatal to the prosecution case.—
1999 PCRLJ 924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAFAQAT ALI VS STATE
Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 21 & 22—Jurisdiction to detain, search and arrest—One cane containing country-made liquor equal to 100 bottles were taken into possession from the accused by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police—Assistant Sub-Inspector under Ss.21 & 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was neither competent nor had power to detain, search and arrest the accused—Power and authority to set the law in motion was linked with the substantive jurisdiction without which the proceedings could not be intitiated—Arrest of accused being without lawful authority, he was admitted to bail.
1999 PCRLJ 391 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALID NAWAZ VS STATE
—-Ss. 9, 21 & 22—Appreciation of evidence—Police Officer of the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, in view of S.22 read with S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995, was neither competent nor had the authority to detain, search and
1999 PCRLJ 1033 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ASLAM VS STATE
Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 9 & 21—Notification No.S.R.0.59(I)/97—Jurisdiction of Excise Police to investigate—Excise Inspector on receiving spy information to the effect that accused was dealing in Charas, obtained search warrant from Excise and Taxation Officer and raided house of accused and after search and seizure lodged the F.I.R.—Assertion of accused was that Excise Police had no jurisdiction to effect arrest, search, seizure and to investigate into offence—Prosecution had produced Notification S.R.0.59(I)/97, dated 7-8-1997 whereby Federal Government, in exercise of powers under S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had authorised members of Provincial Excise not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or equivalent to exercise functions out of their respective jurisdiction—Contention that Excise Inspector had no jurisdiction to investigate offence, was of no consequence in circumstances.
1998 PCRLJ 2086 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
NASRULLAH VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 9, 29 & 21—Appreciation of evidence— “Controlled substances”—Connotation—” Opium baked” being covered by the “controlled substances” was cognizable by the Special Court constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Since
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 2008 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALID NAWAZ VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 9, 21 & 22—Appreciation of evidence—Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Station during “Gusht” finding accused in suspicious position, searched him and allegedly recovered heroin from his possession and registered case against him–Alleged recov
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
1998 PCRLJ 1444 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
LIAQUAT ALI VS THE STATE
—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9 & 21–Bail, grant of—Maximum punishment provided in respect of offence alleged against accused, was seven years—Case against accused in circumstances would not fall within prohibit