Section 14 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997

Section 14 : Prohibition on aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences

2022 YLRN 72 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL QADIR VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotic drugs, prohibition on aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Bail, grant of—Withholding best evidence—Scope—Prosecution case was that the accused booked the alleged parcel in a courier service containing 550000 tablets of diazepam weighing 9.270 kilograms, his copy of CNIC was attached with the parcel and on that basis he was charged with the offence punishable under S. 6 read with Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Narcotic substance was not recovered from the immediate possession of the accused—CNIC of accused was used on the alleged cargo dispatch—Investigating officer was duty bound to have arranged identification of the accused through the witness who had allegedly seen him appearing in his office while booking the alleged parcel, which piece of evidence was withheld without assigning any reason—Accused had joined the investigation and nothing incriminating was secured from his possession—Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 SCMR 2062 SUPREME-COURT

DAD KHAN VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 14 & 51— Aiding, abetment or association in trafficking of methamphetamine—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Anti-Narcotic Force contingent, on a tip off, intercepted co-accused in the departure lounge of an airport, while boarding an international flight with a substantial quantity of methamphetamine—Name of accused was subsequently added as being part of the cartel behind the consignment, and he had allegedly booked a room in a local hotel where the co-accused and accused, three in number, stayed the night preceding the flight—However, the prosecution had not been able to point out any material to confirm presence of the principal co-accused with the accused except for latter’s statement recorded during custody nor there was any data available with the prosecution to establish presence of accused at or around the airport before departure of the flight, therefore, accused’s culpability as an abettor, aiding the crime in association with the principal offender, within the contemplation of S. 14 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 so as to attract the bar provided under S. 51 thereof, warranted further probe—Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was released on bail.

2020 YLR 2636 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

State VS SARDAR MUHAMMAD alias SARDARA GUJJAR

Ss. 9 (c), 14, 15, 19, 37 & 48—Forfeiture of assets, refusal of—Acquittal—Accused was acquitted by Trial Court and the Court declined to forfeit his assets on the ground that his son and brother were involved in drug trafficking—Validity—Accused was tried for charges under Ss.9, 14 & 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, along with other charges but he was not convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for the charge under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, nor for abetment of the offence, as envisaged under S.15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused was acquitted by Trial Court from all charges therefore, provisions of S. 37 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were not attracted against him—Authorities filed appeal malafidely against accused only on the ground that his son and brother were also accused in the case—High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court as no illegality or material irregularity was pointed out in the order—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2020 MLD 1255 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9, 14, 15, 25 & 51—Possession of three and half kilograms of Charas—Bail, refusal of—“Huge quantity”—Scope—Petitioner, possessing narcotic substance, was arrested—Petitioner contended that charas belonged to some one else and there was no material to connect him with the alleged offence—Petitioner was caught red-handed with a huge quantity of Charas unlikely to have been foisted on him especially as there was no allegation of any enmity between him and Anti Narcotic Force officials who arrested him—Chemical Report was positive—Quantity of narcotic had brought the offence within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C—Non-presence of independent mashirs was of no significance at bail stage—Sufficient material was on record to connect the petitioner with the offence—Bail was refused, in circumstance.

2019 SCMR 608 SUPREME-COURT

ABDUL GHANI VS State

Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotics, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Safe transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner not established—Effect—In a case where safe custody of the recovered substance or safe transmission of samples of the recovered substance was not proved by the prosecution through independent evidence, it could not be concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt—Record of the present case showed that safe custody of the recovered substance as well as safe transmission of samples of the recovered substance to the office of the Chemical Examiner had not been established by the prosecution—Station House Officer (SHO)/complainant had stated before the Trial Court that he had deposited the recovered substance at the malkhana of the local police station but admittedly the moharrir of the said police station had not been produced before the Trial Court to depose about safe custody of the recovered substance—Head Constable who had delivered the samples of the recovered substance at the office of the Chemical Examiner had also not been produced during the trial so as to confirm safe transmission of the samples of the recovered substance—Convictions and sentences of the accused persons recorded and upheld by the courts below were set aside in such circumstances and they were acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to them—Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2019 MLD 30 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AYUB MASIH VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9(c), 14, 15, 25 & 51—Possession of narcotic drugs, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences— Post-arrest bail, refusal of—Complainant raided the house of one petitioner and recovered more than 14 kilograms of charras; on his disclosure; charas weighing 8 kilograms was recovered from the house of his neighbour, the other petitioner—Petitioners contended that alleged recovery had been conducted in violation of provision contained under S.103, Cr.P.C—For recovery of contraband more than 1 Kilogram S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provided penalty of death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which could extend to 14 years and also fine up to one million rupees—Case of the petitioners, therefore, was hit by the prohibition contained in S.51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 —Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act ,1997 excluded the applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C—Petitioners were not entitled for the concession of bail in circumstances.

2019 YLRN 68 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AMAR AMAN VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15—Bail, grant of—Case of further inquiry—Delay in conclusion of trial—Knowledge of accused—Proof—Accused was arrested for having ‘Bilty’ (Bill of Lading) seeking release of consignment of leather goods which allegedly contained 3.200 kilograms of heroin—Validity—Accused had only come with ‘Bilty’ (Bill of Lading) and consignment was not handed over to him—Accused was arrested only because he had ‘Bilty’ (Bill of Lading), in which consignment was mentioned as leather jackets—Prima facie it was a case of further inquiry as to whether accused himself was involved in change of consignment from leather jackets into contraband items recovered in said consignment by prosecution before even disclosing to accused—Accused was already behind the bars since 2014 and was not required for investigation—Bail was allowed in circumstances.

2019 PCrLJN 153 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SAJID YAMEEN VS State

Ss. 497 & 164—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 38 & 39—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9, 14, 15, 25 & 51—Possession of narcotic substance—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Confessional statement of main accused against co-accused—Scope—Expeditious and fair trial, right of—Petitioner contended that said evidence (confession) had no evidentiary value against him as the alleged recovery was effected from the main accused—Record revealed that though amended charge had been framed yet not a single witness had been examined— Progress report submitted by Trial Court with regard to non-examination of prosecution witness was not satisfactory—Petitioner was behind the bars for last more than eleven months but not a single witness had been examined—Trial was not expected to be concluded in near future—Record had not shown that the petitioner was responsible for delay in concluding the trial—Four accused persons, including the petitioner, had been arrested and Trial Court had granted bail to two accused, although, one of said accused was apprehended with the main accused, whereas, petitioner was arrested much after the arrest of main accused and nothing was recovered from his possession, as such, the case of petitioner was on better footing than the case of co-accused, who had been granted bail by the Trial Court—Contention of the petitioner regarding confessional statement of main accused having no evidentiary value could be decided only after recording of evidence of prosecution witness which still had not been recorded—Record showed that the alleged recovery of contraband had not been recovered directly from the petitioner but he was arrested on the basis of statement of the main accused, which tentatively had no basis—No material existed on record, which could show that the petitioner had any concern with the alleged recovery—Question whether the petitioner was liable for the recovery of narcotic from the possession of main accused would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence of the parties—Case of the petitioner called for further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.—Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances. [Paras. 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment]

2019 PCrLJN 98 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

QAMAR MEHMOOD VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 14, 15 & 51—Possession of twenty Kilograms of heroin—Offence against society—Bail, refusal of—Reasonable grounds—Scope—Previous conviction—Effect—Allegation against the petitioner was that he was going to smuggle huge quantity of heroin abroad by concealing the same in tyres of tractors lying in container—Validity—While exercising jurisdiction under S. 497, Cr.P.C. the courts were not supposed to dive deep into merits of the case but to determine of existence or non-existence of reasonable grounds towards link of the accused with the commission of offence or otherwise which could legally be made only on the basis of tentative assessment—High Court observed that existence or non-existence of reasonable grounds would never mean stamping one with tag of innocence or guilt but was meant to maintain a balance between liberty of one pending determination of his guilt and likely possibility of harmful effects in releasing a person charged with offence falling within the category of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.—Recovery of twenty Kilograms of heroin, in the present case, which was allegedly kept by the petitioner in his godown and dispatched the same from Lahore to Karachi; evidence of godown owner, clearing agent and drivers showed the involvement of the petitioner with the commission of crime—Petitioner was charged with an offence which squarely fell within the meaning of offence against society which alone could be the reason to deny him bail—Provision of S. 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was included for the same reason, thus placing a bar in granting bail in such like offences—Petitioner was also a previous convict on similar charge (possessing of two Kilogram of heroin) which also created a circumstance justifying to deny bail to the petitioner who, otherwise, was charged with such an offence—Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

2018 PCrLJ 837 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

MUHAMMAD ALAM VS State

Ss. 3, 4, 20, 39 & Sched.—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 13, 14 & 15—Possession of 1290 grams of heroin and foreign currency—Predicate offence—Jurisdiction—Scope—Special Court Control of Narcotic Substances admitted accused for bail for offences under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 but refused bail for offences under Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010—Validity—Section 20 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010 envisaged that the Court of Session established under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 would, within territorial jurisdiction, exercise jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the offence(s) punishable under the Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010 , however, proviso (a) of S. 20 of the said Act showed that if the predicate offence was triable by any court other than the Court of Session, then the offence of money laundering and all matters connected therewith or incidental thereto would be tried by the Court trying the predicate offence(s)—As the main offence against the accused fell within the ambit of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, therefore, being predicate offence, the same was triable by the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 also fell within the meaning of “predicate offences” as mentioned in the Schedule of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010—Section 39 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 had overriding effect and said provision would be in addition to, and not in derogation of, which indicated that where the predicate offence was triable by any Court, the offence of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 would be cognizable by that Court—Court under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was competent to adjudicate matter in the present case—Offence under Ss. 3 & 4 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 not falling within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the bail was granted to accused.

2018 YLR 1436 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

FAZAL MOULA VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotic drugs, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Bail, refusal of—Accused allegedly was arrested red-handed while he was receiving charas (narcotic) packets and putting in the diggy of car—Samples so separated from the recovered lot when were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory were analyzed as ‘charas’ by Chemical Examiner—Counsel for accused was unable to point out any misreading, non-reading of material and law available on the subject—Accused was involved in other case of recovery of charas; which fact was conceded by accused—Offences punishable under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 were by its nature heinous in nature and against the society at large—Bail was refused accordingly.

2018 YLR 1400 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD MUBEEN KHAN VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotic drugs, aiding abetment or association in narcotic offences—Bail, refusal of—Second bail application— Maintainability— Scope—High Court had already rejected the bail application of the accused on merits—Second bail application was filed within one month of the rejection of first such application—Contention of counsel for accused that some of the grounds shown in earlier bail application were not dealt with separately while rejecting the bail application, therefore plea for bail of the accused could be reconsidered in the second application, was patently untenable for the reason that High Court had already rejected first bail application on merits—Second bail application on the face of it was misconceived and not entertainable as admittedly there was no fresh ground available to the accused to file the second bail application—Bail was refused.

2018 YLR 417 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Sardar MUHAMMAD AZAD KHAN VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 & 15—Possession of narcotic drugs, export and trafficking of narcotic drugs, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic drugs—Bail, refusal of—Huge quantity of narcotic drugs was recovered from a container shipped from one country to another—Scrutiny of shipment showed that documents, cell numbers, emails of both the accused persons were found involved in commission of offence—Accused was unable to point out any mis-reading, non-reading of material and law on the subject—One out of the two accused persons was previous convict in a narcotic case, said fact was conceded by accused—No enmity, ill-will or grudge was alleged against prosecution witnesses and sufficient material was brought by prosecution on the record—Bail was refused accordingly.

2018 PCrLJ 473 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BABAR JAMEEL VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9(c), 14, 15 & 51—Possession of narcotic drugs, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Bail, refusal of—Accused was arrested red-handed with possession of Diazepam tablets (psychotropic substance)—Chemical Examination Report supported the prosecution case—Recovery of Diazepam tablets was witnessed by Police Officials who were as good witnesses as any other person—Police had no ostensible reason to falsely implicate accused—Case of accused was hit by prohibition contained in S. 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Diazepam was mentioned in S. 2(za) at Serial No. 24 of Schedule of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which came within the definition of “psychotropic substance” and was prohibited to possess and transport—Alleged offence fell under section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which was punishable with life imprisonment—Accused had failed to substantiate his claim that alleged recovered Diazepam tablets was for exceptions as provided in law, therefore, no case of further inquiry was made out—Bail was refused accordingly.

2018 PCrLJ 66 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NAEEM AKHTAR alias ALI HAIDER VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotic drugs, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Bail, refusal of—One hundred kilogram charas (narcotic) was recovered from the car and subsequently on pointation of accused, a total of three thousand, two hundred and thirteen kilogram charas was recovered from a warehouse—Such huge quantity of narcotics palpably could not be foisted upon the accused—Delay in registration of FIR was properly explained in the FIR that showed that in recovering the charas kept in different packets and in sorting it out and finally sealing it, time was consumed—Delay in conclusion of trial occurred due to change of advocates by the accused and their absence on dates of hearing when the witnesses were present—Non-compliance of directions by High Court to conclude trial within a specific period could not be considered as valid ground to grant bail to accused—Bail was refused accordingly.

2018 MLD 129 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ASGHAR ALI VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotic drugs, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic drugs—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—No private witness was associated in spite of prior spy information—Representative part of recovered narcotic for chemical analysis was sent with delay—Accused was behind the bars since nine months and was no more required for any purpose of investigation—Prosecution had not claimed that accused was previously involved in same nature of cases—All the prosecution witnesses were Police Officials hence there was no question of tampering with the evidence—Prima facie, accused had succeeded to bring his case within purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Bail was granted accordingly.

2017 YLR 874 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

QAMAR ZAMAN VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession and trafficking of narcotics, aiding, abetment or association in such offences—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Challan had been submitted and accused was no more required for further investigation—All prosecution witnesses were police officials and to procure their attendance was not a difficult task for the prosecution, and there was no apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence—Accused was behind the bars for the last more than one year and during the said period, even charge had not been framed against the accused—Early commencement of trial was not expected in near future—Prosecution had not furnished any substance that accused was involved in cases of similar nature in past nor he was previous convict and there was no probability of his abscondance—Further detention of accused would not serve any useful purpose—Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.

2017 YLR 874 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

QAMAR ZAMAN VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession and trafficking of narcotics, aiding, abetment or association in such offences—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry–Prosecution case was that accused was apprehended from the Airport’s departure lounge and from his bag, narcotic drug was recovered—Complainant had a plenty of time after receiving information, to associate any private person to act as witness to maintain the transparency of the recovery of narcotic substance but he did neither make any effort to associate public nor any private witness prior to the interception of the accused—Such demeanor of the complainant in absence of plausible explanation, could not be ignored—Fact remained that case of accused called for further inquiry within the scope of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.—Bail was allowed in circumstances.

2017 YLRN 165 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHAHZAD VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession and trafficking of narcotics, aiding, abetment or association in such offences—Bail, refusal of—Prosecution case was that two accused were apprehended, and each of them was found in possession of 2-kilogram and 1750 grams of charas—Record showed that narcotic was sealed on the spot and to the next day of its recovery, entire sealed charas was sent for chemical examination, report thereof was positive—No private person was ready to become witness in the case despite approached by the complainant (Police official)—FIR had been lodged promptly—Co-accused was released on bail as only 250 grams of charas was recovered from his possession, and his case fell under S.9(b) of the Act—Rule of consistency could not be applied in the case of two accused persons as huge quantity of charas was recovered from their possession and their case fell under S.9(c) of the Act—Accused petitioners had not alleged any enmity with the official of Anti Narcotic Force for their false implication—Sufficient material prima facie, was available on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence—Bail was dismissed accordingly.

2016 YLR 1354 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MOHAN LAL VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.51, 7, 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotics—Bail, refusal of—Contention of accused persons was that there was no evidence against them except statements of co-accused, which were inadmissible and co-accused had not mentioned the names of present accused in their statements—Prosecution’s plea was that accused persons were owners of a factory and cotton bales from which 68 kilograms of heroin was recovered were loaded on trawler from factory of accused—Held, that provision contemplated by S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 could not be ignored at the time of granting of bail—In the present case, a huge quantity of narcotic had been recovered, therefore accused were not entitled to bail—Bail was denied, accordingly.

2016 PCrLJ 1495 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

SHAKEEL AHMAD VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 14, 15 & 51—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Bail, refusal of—Section 51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had created a bar to grant bail to accused, charged under Special Law i.e. Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Refusal of bail was rule, and grant was only an exception in cases falling under said Act—For availing exception provided in S. 51 of the Act, accused had to make out a case—Prosecution had two fold responsibilities firstly, it was to establish that the contraband narcotics recovered, was in conscious possession of accused; and secondly to establish that a particular quantity had been recovered from a particular accused—In absence of such evidence, it would be difficult for the court to draw inference against accused—In the present case, no apparent defect existed which should be resolved in favour of accused—Courts were extending concession of bail to accused, where participation/implication of accused was doubtful or debatable—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was a Special Law, which had been enacted to curb the drug traffickers, and severe punishment had been proved to create deterrence for like-minded people—Accused persons having failed to make out a case for exercise of discretion of the court in their favour, bail petition, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015 YLR 855 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHOAIB SULTAN VS State

S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.7, 8, 9 (c), 14 & 15—Import, export and trafficking of narcotic drug—Bail, grant of—Use of licence—Suspension of proceedings—Interim post arrest bail—Plea raised by accused was that proceedings before Trial Court had been suspended—Effect—No incriminating evidence was available against accused, which could justify his facing trial—Earlier order was an interim order and was subject to final order passed in those proceedings—Such situation could not justify keeping accused in custody for an indefinite period when according to both the parties no evidence of whatsoever nature was available against accused—Only licence of accused was used which was normal in market and such fact could not constitute criminal offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, by itself for making out a case—Incriminating evidence was necessary when a person was brought in Court to face trial—Interim post arrest bail was allowed in circumstances.

2015 YLR 398 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SALEEM KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15—Smuggling of narcotic, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Police Officer who was material and star witness of the entire prosecution case, was not examined by Investigating Officer—Evidence of a witness whose statement had not been recorded during the investigation, was not worth reliance—Evidence of said witness, nowhere disclosed, whether at the time of placing suitcase by accused in the container, he had noted any mark of identification on the same—Said witness had also admitted that the suit case in question was not opened, or any heroin was recovered from it in his presence—Evidence of such witness, appeared to be manoeuvered, and set up one for the reason that he not only failed to note number of vehicle wherein said suit case was allegedly brought; and could not give the number of Bay where aeroplane was parked—No other evidence was brought against accused persons—Trial Court had recorded the conviction against accused without any incriminating material/ evidence on record—Impugned judgment, was set aside, and accused persons were acquitted of the charge and were ordered to be released extending them the benefit of doubt, in circumstances.

2015 PCrLJ 1133 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDULLAH BHUTTO VS State

Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14, 15 & 29—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380, 381, 406, 408 & 409—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.403—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.19—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.13(a)—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Theft in dwelling house, theft by clerk or servant, criminal breach of trust, criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant, public servant—Double jeopardy—Appreciation of evidence—Case against accused was bifurcated in three parts, on direction of Trial Court, and challan was submitted in three counts respectively—Case under Ss.380 & 381, P.P.C. was challaned and submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate at place ‘S’, while offence under Ss.406, 408 & 409, P.P.C. in court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption at place ‘L’ and for offence under Ss.9(c), 14 & 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in the court of Special Judge (Control of Narcotic Substances) at place ‘S’—Accused, had been finally acquitted in first two challan cases regarding theft and misappropriation of charas lying in the Record Room of a court—Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was punitive clause, would come into play only when contravention of Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the Act, was made by accused—Person who was found in possession of narcotic, or was indulged in import and export of narcotic, or was found involved in trafficking of narcotic, could be convicted and sentenced under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Present case of the prosecution was not that accused was found importing or exporting the contraband narcotics in any manner—Contraband charas, was allegedly kept in “Malkhana” of which accused being Police Official was incharge of charas in question, which was allegedly misappropriated for monetary gains—Accused had been acquitted of the charges of misappropriation and theft by both the Trial Courts respectively—Prosecution having failed to prove the primary charges of the theft and misappropriation case of prosecution could not succeed on the same set of evidence in view of Art. 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, merely for the reason of the act of possessing and trafficking the contraband charas—Accused having already been acquitted by two different courts of the charges of theft and misappropriation in the same crime, therefore, rule that no one would be vexed twice for the same offence, was fully applicable in the present scenario of the case—Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, were set aside, and accused was acquitted of the charge and his bail bond stood cancelled and surety was discharged, in circumstances.

2014 PCrLJ 561 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

AZIZ ULLAH KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Denial of accused of allegation levelled against him—Effect—If at the time of framing of charge, accused would deny the allegation levelled against him by the prosecution; that nothing had been recovered from his possession or custody; and that in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. he had controverted the allegation regarding recovery of narcotics from his possession or custody, then mere failure to challenge during the trial that remaining untested recovered substance was not narcotic substance, could neither weaken the case of defence nor strengthen the case of the prosecution.

2013 PCrLJ 279 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FORCE COMMANDER, REGIONAL DIRECTORATE ANF, RAWALPINDI VS JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (CNS)

338—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotic, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Statement of approver, recording of—Scope—Competency of Special Prosecutor (Anti-Narcotics Force) to file application for declaring an accused as approver—Scope—Accused and co-accused were allegedly involved in granting quotas of Ephedrine against the rules—Application filed by Special Prosecutor (Anti-Narcotics Force) for declaring the co-accused as an approver so as to record his statement was dismissed by the Trial Court on the grounds that complete challan had not been submitted; that the trial had not commenced so far; that the application pertaining to the pardon so as to declare the co-accused as an approver had not been moved by the In-charge of prosecution, and that the proposed statement of the co-accused had not been appended with the application—Validity—Statement of the approver could be recorded during the investigation or inquiry or trial, therefore, there was no condition precedent attached to the statement of the approver under S.338, Cr.P.C., and same could be recorded at any time before the judgment—Special Prosecutor (Anti-Narcotics Force) was undoubtedly the In-charge of prosecution and when a pardon had been tendered by the competent authority, Special Prosecutor was fully competent to move the application for declaring the co-accused as an approver—Record showed that statement of the co-accused was available on the record and had been appended with the petition filed by the Special Prosecutor—Impugned order of the Trial court, therefore, was not based on sound reasoning—Revision petition was accepted, impugned order was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the matter as per request of the Special Prosecutor for declaring the co-accused as approver in the case on the conditions to be set out by the Trial Court and to record the statement of the approver in accordance with the law.

2013 MLD 1183 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Sheikh ANSAR AHMAD VS State

497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 14, 15 & 16—Aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Accused, who was a Drug Controller at the Health Department, was alleged to have played an instrumental role in issuance of Ephedrine quota to different companies in huge quantities beyond the prescribed limits—Investigation carried out to date and record of the case showed that accused allegedly misused his authority for issuance of quota to different companies—Violation of Ss.6, 7 & 8 of Control of Narcotic Substances, 1997 could only be seen after recording of evidence at trial stage—Presently accused could only be saddled with penalty provided under S. 16 of Control of Narcotic Substances, 1997, which was a bailable offence—Case of accused required further inquiry—Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.

2013 YLR 2560 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AYAZ PATHAN VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9(c), 14, 15, 25 & 29—Possessing, trafficking of narcotics, and aiding, abetting and associating in narcotic offences—Bail, refusal of—Prosecution witnesses, had no enmity whatsoever, with accused to foist such a huge quantity of nine Kilograms of charas upon him—Chemical Examiner’s report regarding recovered charas was found positive—Substance recovered from accused, was proved to be charas—Prosecution, in circumstances, had discharged its initial onus while proving that the substance recovered from accused was contraband charas—Sufficient material was available on record, which had shown that accused was found sitting on front seat of the vehicle, and he was found responsible for transportation of narcotics—Defence plea that the narcotic was not recovered from possession of accused, was not true—Alleged offence was heinous one falling within prohibited clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Contention that respectable inhabitants of the locality, were not associated as witness or mashir, was not attracted in view of S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C., had been excluded in the cases of recovery of narcotics—Evidence of Police Officials, was as good as of any other public witness, in absence of any malice or mala fide—Defence plea raised by accused, required deeper appreciation of evidence, which was not admissible at bail stage—Under provisions of S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 presumption would be that a person who was found in possession of narcotics, had committed offence, unless otherwise proved—Reasonable grounds, prima facie, did exist to believe the involvement of accused in the offence alleged against him—Bail application having no merits for consideration, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012 SCMR 870 SUPREME-COURT

REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE VS RIZWAN AHMED KHAN

Ss. 6, 9(c), 14 & 15—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)—Possession of narcotic, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Allegations were that Ministry of Health had favoured two companies by extending/granting to them quotas of Ephedrine against the Rules and inquiry into such allegation was being obstructed and hampered—Supreme Court observed that commission of the crime, as disclosed in the F.I.R., was of a serious nature, notwithstanding whosoever was involved and what was his status, and concerned authorities should have allowed a transparent inquiry and investigation instead of causing obstructions and hampering the same for one reason or the other—Supreme Court directed that transfer/posting of Director-General, Regional Director and Deputy Director of Anti-Narcotics Force, in colourable exercise of powers, was not free from extraneous consideration, therefore, Regional Director and Deputy Director of Anti-Narcotics Force were not to relinquish the charge and they should continue with the investigation of the case without being influenced in any manner from any one—Order accordingly.

2012 PCrLJ 1877 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MAKHDOOM SHAHABUDDIN VS State

Ss. 498 & 337—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 14, 15 & 16—Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001, Sched. V—Possession of narcotics, import or export of narcotic drugs, trafficking or financing the trafficking of narcotic drugs etc., aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—PreÂarrest bail, refusal of—Ephedrine—Classification as a controlled narcotic substance—Scope—Approver, statement of—Evidentiary value—Scope—Allegations against accused persons were that they were involved in the grant of ephedrine/chemical quotas to two companies in contravention of rules; that they converted export status of said ephedrine to that for local consumption and let the two companies in question dispose of their quotas in an -unauthorized manner—Statements of approvers connected accused and co-accused with commission of the alleged crime—Contentions of accused and co-accused were that statements of approvers was a weak type of evidence having no substantial value; that accused had been involved in the case with mala fide, as his arrest warrants were issued on the day when he was going to be elected as the Prime Minister, and that ephedrine was not a narcotic substance—Validity—Ephedrine was a controlled chemical/narcotic substance—Approvers had fulfilled all the codal formalities as provided in S.337, Cr. P. C., as such their statements would have evidentiary value and would be material and relevant for consideration—Elements of mala fide could not be attached with the officials of investigation agency, as they would not have been benefited by replacing the accused from his candidature of Prime Minister—PreÂarrest bail could only be granted if the proposed arrest was for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjustified harassment by a prosecuting agency, motivation for which was to. cause irreparable injury to reputation and liberty of the accused person—Said elements were missing in the present case rather had not been raised by accused and co-accused—Prima facie, accused and co-accused had misused their status and by their unauthorized and illegal acts the commission of alleged offence was made possible—Purpose of effective and meaningful investigation into the case could not be achieved by putting accused and co-accused at large—Accused and co-accused were denied bail, in circumstances.

2012 MLD 1503 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

CHRISTOPHE YAKIBONGAY VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotics—Bail, grant of—First bail application of accused had been disposed of by High Court without touching merits of the case, with a direction to Trial Court for conclusion of trial by a specified date—Two co-accused similarly placed in the F.I.R. had already been released on bail—Accused was in custody for the last more than two years and trial was still going on—Accused was entitled to bail on the rule of consistency—Even otherwise, direction of High Court of concluding the trial within the specified period had not been followed by the Trial Court in letter and spirit—Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

2011 SCMR 1471 SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD HANIF VS State

Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14, 15 & 16—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A—Superdari of vehicle—Principle—Petitioner was registered owner of vehicle from which narcotics was recovered—No other person had come forward to claim ownership or possession of vehicle in question—Petitioner was not accused person in the case and he undertook to produce the relevant vehicle before any court of law if and when required to do so-Effect-Investigating agency was not justified in treating or taking possession of the vehicle as case property—Supreme Court directed that vehicle in question should not to be treated as case property and the same was handed over to petitioner on Superdari—Appeal was allowed.

2011 YLR 172 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NOOR REHMAN VS State

497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotic drugs etc., aiding, abetting or association in narcotic offences—Bail, refusal of—Accused were arrested red handed with huge quantity of heroin and charas—Reasonable explanation for non-availability of private mashirs during recovery proceedings was given—No reason for mala fide on the part of Police for implicating the accused was given either—Report of the Chemical Examiner was positive—No case of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr. P. C. was made out—Accused were alleged to have been involved in heinous crime, were not entitled to bail—Petition was dismissed.

2011 PCrLJ 1551 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALI ZAMAN VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6/9(c)/14/15—Possession of narcotics—Bail, refusal of—“Charas” weighing 3.850 kgs had allegedly been recovered from the possession of accused on the spot—Persons passing by despite approach had refused to become witnesses in the case—Section 103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable to the cases registered under Control of Narcotic Substances Act; 1997—Report of Chemical Examiner was positive—F.I.R. had been promptly lodged implicating the accused with a specific role—Co-Âaccused had been released on bail being a woman and her case being a border line case—No undue delay had been shown on the part of prosecution—Sufficient material was, prima facie, available on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence—Such crimes were on the rampant, which should be dealt with strictly in accordance with law and looking into all the prevailing circumstances of the case—No case of further inquiry was made out—Bail application was dismissed in circumstances.

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 PCrLJ 72 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GHULAM HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 6, 9(c), 14 & 15—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Case property was not sealed and mashirnama bore no signatures of any personnel of ship—Mashirnama did not show that after drawing the samples, signatures of the witnesses had been obtained—Neither the sample was dated nor it was sealed—No shape or the description of the charas had been mentioned in the mashirnama—F.I.R. was totally silent as regard to the drawing of the sample or sending the same for the chemical examination—All the mashirs in the case were that of Customs Department, who did not have any idea with regard to the weight of the bags which were alleged to have been recovered from the possession of accused persons—No time had been mentioned on the report showing recovery of the contraband items—Whenever a doubt was created, the advantage of that had to be given to accused, not as a matter of grace, but as a matter of right—Case was full of contradictions and prosecution had not been able to prove the charges against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt—Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused persons, beyond any reasonable doubt, accused were acquitted of the charges against them.

2011 MLD 923 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HAMID ALLAUDDIN VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9(c), 14 & 15—Prohibition of possession of narcotic drugs and aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Bail, refusal of—Medical grounds—Counsel for accused did not press bail application on merits, but had confined his arguments on medical grounds stating that accused suffered from kidney problem—Counsel had placed on record medical report of accused issued by Medical Officer—3.300 Kgs. of heroin powder was recovered from the possession of accused while he was leaving abroad—Accused did not suffer from the ailment for which medical treatment was not available in the jail—Accused did not suffer from such disease which could prove detrimental to his life—Accused was declined concession of bail on medical grounds.

2010 YLR 1660 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SAQIB ASGHAR SHAIKH VS State

Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A—Possession of narcotics—Quashing of F.I.R. and proceedings, application for—Record had shown that no incriminating evidence was available against accused connecting him with the alleged crime in any manner whatsoever—Presence of accused with co-accused, if any, alone by itself, did not connect him with the alleged offence—Mens rea of accused was also not open to be established as the investigation was over and no evidence was collected to show that he had knowledge of the presence of the narcotic substance with co-accused; and that he had been a party to what role was said to have been played by co-accused in the case—Co-accused already stood acquitted under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. for want of incriminating evidence and such order had not been challenged in appeal by authorities—Case of accused was also likely to meet the same fate and ultimately, if the proceedings would go on, Court would not be able to convict accused in the crime in question for want of positive incriminating evidence; and proceedings, would bear and carry a status of futile exercise and abuse of process of law—Trial Court did not appear to have properly appreciated the material on record—Application filed by accused for quashing of F.I.R. and proceedings was allowed and proceedings culminating from F.I.R., stood quashed.

2010 PCrLJ 800 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GULZAR AHMED VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 14—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.561-A & 265-K—Possessing narcotics—Application invoking inherent jurisdiction of High Court—Conversion of application into revision petition—Accused persons who were nominated in the F.I.R., filed application under S.265-K, Cr. P. C. before court of Special Judge-Said application having been dismissed and accused being aggrieved by the order of dismissal they moved application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.—Said application was treated as revision petition and was decided as such—Statement of co-accused given during investigation had not been brought to the notice of the High Court Bench which passed the impugned order and as far as that particular aspect of statement of co-accused was concerned the order of the Bench was an order sub silentio—Held, at such stage neither the Trial Court nor the High Court could say that statement of co-accused should be totally ruled out of consideration—Revision application was dismissed.

2009 PCrLJ 1278 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NASRULLAH VS State

Ss. 9(c)/14/15—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution case hinged on the direct evidence furnished by two prosecution witnesses, one was Police Inspector and other was Head Constable, the recovery of the incriminating material from the direct physical and conscious possession of accused persons and the positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory—Police Inspector, had not only affirmed his earlier version, but narrated the subsequent events in the case—Said functionary was cross-examined on all material particulars, but nothing favourable to accused came out from his mouth and his testimony remained unshattered; he was true witness of the incident and his testimony was rightly taken into consideration—Other prosecution witness who was Head Constable was also put to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but his testimony also remained unrebutted on every aspect of the case—Though both said two prosecution witnesses were Anti-Narcotic Force Officials, but since the defence had failed to prove any animosity or rancor against accused persons so as to falsely implicate them in the crime, their deposition was rightly believed by the Trial Court—Proved and unchallenged testimony of said two prosecution witnesses, having revealed the date, time, place of occurrence, presence of the recovered contraband Charas from the secret cavities of the motor car in question, the prosecution had successfully established and proved its case against accused persons—Accused were correctly found guilty for the offence and were rightly convicted and sentenced through impugned, judgment—Counsel for accused had failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, perversity, non-appraisal of evidence or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment of conviction, which was accordingly maintained.

2009 YLR 58 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ATIF SHAHAB VS State

S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 13 & 14—Bail, refusal of—Previous bail application of accused had already been dismissed an merits by High Court—Accused was driving the Bus from Peshawar to Karachi from which 100 packets of ‘Charas’ weighing 100 Kilograms were recovered—Driver would be in the knowledge of the presence of the narcotics during driving the bus—Even otherwise, huge quantity of narcotics having been recovered in the case, S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, carrying a sentence of not less than imprisonment for life, was attracted and bail could not be allowed to accused—Bail was declined to accused accordingly.

2009 MLD 115 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BAZ MUHAMMAD VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 12, 13, 14, 15, 25 & 51—Bail, refusal of—Name of accused was mentioned in the F.I.R. with specific role attributed to him—Accused was the person who booked the consignment containing carpets in which more than 5 Kilograms of heroin powder was concealed and recovered by Anti-Narcotics Force—Accused had conscious knowledge of such concealment of huge quantity of heroin powder in the said carpets—Samples of heroin powder were rightly drawn—Narcotics Police had unearthed a racket involving in heroin smuggling and recovered huge quantity of heroin powder duly concealed in carpets—Case against all accused persons attracted the provisions of Ss.6, 7 & 8 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, punishable under S.9(c) of said Act for which the punishment provided was death, imprisonment for life or 14 years’ R.I.—Contention of counsel for accused that provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been violated, had no force, in view of the fact that in narcotics case, same was excluded under the provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused was not entitled to the concession of bail—Bail application was dismissed—Bail granted to co-accused was cancelled.

2009 YLR 598 ISLAMABAD

ISMAIL MICHAEL VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14 & 15—Bail, refusal of—Narcotics was recovered from the shoes, which were purchased from a company—Owner along with manager of said company had identified accused on seeing his photograph, being the person, who purchased shoes from them—Deeper appreciation of evidence was not allowed at bail stage and any tentative assessment of material collected by the prosecution during investigation was to be made—Prima facie sufficient material was available on record to believe involvement of accused in the case, wherein offence was punishable with death or life imprisonment and fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. —Challan had already been submitted in the Trial Court, where trial was likely to commence soon—Bail was declined in circumstances.

2008 PCrLJ 691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BASHARAT alias KALA VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 14, 15 & 51—Bail, refusal of—Accused was nominated in the F.I.R.—Role ascribed to accused was that he was holding a shopping bag containing the alleged 5 Kgs. Charas—Case of accused was not at par with co-accused who had already been released on bail—Sufficient grounds were available for believing that accused was connected with the alleged crime—Offence against accused fell under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and in view of prohibition contained in S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, accused could not be released on bail—Bail petition was dismissed.

2008 PCrLJ 679 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GUL AFSAR KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15—Appreciation of evidence—Report of Chemical Examiner in respect of 23 Kgs. Charas sent for chemical examination, was positive—Prosecution witnesses had fully supported case against accused—Counsel for accused had not been able to indicate any material discrepancy in the statements of prosecution witnesses—Even in the statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., accused had not denied the recovery of such huge quantity of Charas from the shop in question—Accused had not urged any ulterior motive against the police or the prosecution—Cumulative effect of the evidence on record was sufficient to pinpoint accused who had been proved to have been directly concerned with the offence—Appreciation of evidence conducted by the Trial Court did not suffer from any procedural or factual fault—No view different from the one expressed by the Special Judge could be taken—Sentences passed by the Trial Court against accused, however must be construed to run concurrently and the Trial Court was not justified in omitting to specify the concurrent nature of sentences.

2008 MLD 1061 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AHMED HUSSAIN VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 & 37—Bail, grant of—Challan was submitted after about 20 days from occurrence and charge was framed after lapse of four years of incident—No progress was made in the trial of case—Accused could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period for no fault of his own in delay of the trial of case—Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.

2008 MLD 978 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

THE STATE through Investigating Officer VS MANSOOR AHMED

Ss.9(c) & 14—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417 & 435—Appeal against acquittal and revision for enhancement of sentence—Accused, was acquitted while his co-accused was convicted for the offence under S.14 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to suffer R.I. for two years and fine—Appeal and revision had been filed with a prayer that accused who had been acquitted be also convicted and that sentence awarded to co-accused be enhanced—Crux of matter was that charge against accused was framed under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which had provided punishment for death or imprisonment for life, while co-accused had been convicted and sentenced for two years convicted under S.14 of the said Ordinance—Flaw/ambiguity appeared in the impugned judgment whereby co-accused had been convicted under S.14 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, though the charge proved against him was under S.9(c) of said Act—Revision and acquittal appeal were allowed and case was remanded to the Trial Court for de novo consideration and to decide the matter on its own merits according to law.

2008 PLD 112 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD ESSA VS State

497(2)-Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 14 & 15—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Before lodging F.I.R. in the case, prosecution had lodged earlier F.I.R. which was the main case—Nothing had been recovered from the possession of accused in the main case earlier filed against him through F.I.R., which case ended in his acquittal—Trial Court held prosecution of said case as false and directed Authorities to take action against the Department—Accused was already arrested by A.N.F. officials from International departure of the airport—Subsequent arrest of accused in later F.I.R., would create doubt and require further inquiry—Prosecution had shown five kilograms of charas in the present case which was alleged to have been recovered from the car not from the possession of accused who was in continuous custody and had been acquitted in the main case-Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.

2007 PCRLJ 1306 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

THE STATE through A.N.F. Gilgit VS CHIDI

—-Ss. 179 & 180—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 14—Jurisdiction of criminal court in inquiries and trial—Anti-Narcotic Force Police arrested a lady, a citizen of China and lodged F.I.R. against her alleging recovery of 800

2007 PCRLJ 873 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

State VS MUNAWAR HUSSAIN

–S. 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/7/8/9(c)/14/15/16—Entire case property was directed by Trial Court to be produced before the Court—Validity—Poppy straw weighing 9013. Kgs. allegedly recovered from accused was lyin

2006 SCMR 468 SUPREME-COURT

Sh. MUHAMMAD TASLEEM VS State

—S. 497-Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14, 15 & 16—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Bail, refusal of—Investigating agency, after carrying out investigation in the matter, had placed the name of the a

2006 SCMR 1265 SUPREME-COURT

THE STATE through Force Commander, Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi VS KHALID SHARIF

—S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 14 & 15—Bail—Affidavits of witnesses exonerating accused after having provided incriminating evidence involving the accused in the offence at investigation stage—Effect—Cases o

2006 SCMR 1265 SUPREME-COURT

THE STATE through Force Commander, Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi VS KHALID SHARIF

—S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 14 & 15—Bail—Bail applications are to be disposed of on the basis of material available on the record and the Court is required to form a tentative assessment of the evidence avail

2006 MLD 738 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ZULFIQAR ALI VS State

—Ss.9(c), 14 & 15—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439–Petitioner who had claimed ownership of confiscated motorcar allegedly used in occurrence, his case was that respondent rented out said vehicle which was used by accused in the case—Peti

2006 MLD 738 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ZULFIQAR ALI VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 14, 15 & 25—Appreciation of evidence—All seven prosecution witnesses had supported recovery of 67 kilograms of Charas and 2 kilograms of opium from vehicle driven by accused—Incriminating statements of prosecution witnesses on oath were

2006 PCRLJ 1251 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

QADIR BAKHSH VS State

—Ss. 497 & 188—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 & 37—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.38—Bail, grant of—Captain of foreign ship called personnel of Anti-Narcotic Force, at his ship and handed

2005 YLR 1421 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MAZHAR SHAH VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 14, 15, 25 & 48—Appreciation of evidence—All the seven prosecution witnesses had supported recovery of 67 Kilograms of Charas and 2 Kilograms of Opium from vehicle which was admittedly being driven by accused—Incriminating statements of

2005 YLR 228 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ROOH-UL-AMEEN VS THE STATE

—-Ss.9(c), 14 & 15—Appreciation of evidence—Statement of recovery witness with regard to recovery of huge quantity of heroin from vehicle driven by accused, was corroborated by complainant and other prosecution witnesses—Report of Chemical Examine

2005 PCrLJ 1947 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

AKHTAR ALI VS State

–S. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 14, 15 & 51—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—`Charas’ in question had been recovered from suit-case lying in the vehicle which was hired by co-accused—Prosecution had yet to pr

2004 YLR 939 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

STATE/FORCE COMMANDER, REGIONAL DIRECTORATE ANF, RAWALPINDI VS MUHAMMAD AKRAM

—-S. 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c)/14/15 & 74—Release of vehicle on Superdari—Validity—Conductor and driver of the truck were closely related to the owner of the truck which was loaded with the narcotics in the

2004 PCRLJ 593 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL SHAHID QURESHI VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9(c), 14, 15 & 47—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 173, 190, 435, 439 & 561-A—Appreciation of evidence—Summoning—Petitioner had challenged order of Special Court whereby petitioner was summoned as an accused under Ss.9(c), 14 & 15,

2004 YLR 2099 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

IMRAN AMEEN VS THE STATE

—-Ss.6/9(c)/14 & 15—Appreciation of evidence—Special Prosecutor had not supported conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court in view of the fact that no evidence was available against the accused —Co-accused had himself admitted the

2004 PCRLJ 746 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Khan MUHAMMAD KHAN VS THE STATE

—-Preamble, Ss.4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 14—Intent and object behind enacting Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, inter alia, was to control the production, processing and trafficking of narcotics etc. and the Act being a special law the effective

2003 PCrLJ 202 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL SHAHID QURESHI VS THE STATE

—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c)/ 14/ 15—Bail, grant of—Investigating Agency had cited both the accused as prosecution witnesses despite the fact that all necessary Export Documents were provided by both the accus

2003 PCrLJ 1869 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALI BUX VS THE STATE

—-S. 497— Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 9, 12, 14 & 15—Bail, grant of—Accused had been behind the bars for the last five years on the charge of having 250 grams of heroin—Case against the accused had not been proceed

2003 PCRLJ 1700 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD LATEEF VS THE STATE

—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 37—Bail, grant of—Contention of the accused was that although according to Mashirnama 4 Kgs. of Charas was alleged to have been recovered from the possess

2002 PCRLJ 186 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ANWAR ALI VS THE STATE

—-S. 497—Control of, Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15 & 51—Bail, grant of—Bail had been sought on ground of statutory delay—Accused were behind the bars for more than two years—Delay occurred due to inordinate dela

2001 SCMR 1083 SUPREME-COURT

THE STATE VS NASIM AMIN BUTT

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14 & 15—Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156(1)(8)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 13—Narcotics, smuggling of—Trial of accused persons under two different laws—Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether the offences for which the accused persons were being tried under Ss.6, 7, 8, 9(c), 14 & 15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were the same for which they had earlier been tried under 5.156(1)(8) of Customs Act; 1969, as. such, was violative of Art. 13 of the Constitution.

2001 SCMR 14 SUPREME-COURT

THE STATE VS ABDUL QAYUM

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S.497(5)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 & 15—Bail, cancellation of—Failure of prosecution to show any direct or indirect piece of evidence connecting accused with the crime—_ Reliance was placed on the statements of co-accused recorded by police during investigation—Nothing incriminating was found against the accused—Statements of co-accused could not be relied upon for the purpose of cancellation of bail. v

2001 YLR 611 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS STATE

—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9 & 14—Bail, grant of—Accused remained continuously in custody for about two and half years and during that period only the charge had been framed, but not a single witness wa

2001 MLD 1166 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HABIBULLAH KHAN VS THE STATE

—-S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances .Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 14 & .15—Bail, grant of—Application for quashing of proceedings earlier filed by the accused had already been dismissed by High Court—Accused was alleged to be on suspect

2000 YLR 2173 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SABIR VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 403 & 561-A—Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss.156 (1) (89), 157 & 178—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9. 9-C, 14 & 15—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.26—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.13—Quashing of cas

2000 PCRLJ 763 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HAZRAT KHAN VS STATE

—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.6/7/8/9/12/13/14/15—Bail—F.I.R. could not be ruled out of consideration merely on account of the omission of a minor fact as the same did not necessarily require to have contained the mi

2000 PCRLJ 747 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHAHID HUSSAIN VS STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 498—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of Y1997), Ss.9(c), 14 & 51—Bail, grant of—Accused being “Examining Officer” of consignment in which eight hundreds kilograms of Hashish was allegedly being transported to foreign country, wa

2000 PCRLJ 740 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALI DOST VS STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 498—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, ~, 8, 9, 13, 14 & 51—Bail, grant of—Accused and co-accused had established a false trading company and had sent eight hundred Kgs. Hashish in bags to a foreign country—Fact

2000 PCRLJ 738 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SALEEM MEMON VS STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 498—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XV of 1997), Ss.7, 8, 9, 12 & 14—Bail, grant of—Five persons who were arrested in foreign country where consignment was being transported, had alleged during investigation that consignment was ar

2000 PCRLJ 735 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

WAKEEL AHMAD SIDDIQUI VS STATE

——Ss. 497 & 498 —–(control of narcotic substances act (XXV of 1997) Ss 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 & 51 ——-Penal code (XLV of 1860), S 120-B/34—- Bail grant of —–Allegation against accused was that he was connected with company which had export

2000 PCRLJ 569 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN VS STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 498—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 & 51—Bail, grant of—Provisions of S.51(1), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, provide bar in respect of grant of bail to an accused if Trial Court had

2000 MLD 842 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL QAYYUM VS STATE

—-S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 14 & 15—Bail—Court obviously could not be oblivious to the menace of drugs and their evil effects in the society, but the law as to the grant of bail in such offences, despit

1999 YLR 1953 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

IZZAT KHAN VS STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 156—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4–Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9/14—Bail—Officer-in-charge of a police station or his delegatee had the power to investigate a cognizable case onl

1999 YLR 1286 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAKHAWAT ALI SHAH VS STATE

—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (IA’V of 1997), S. 14/15—Bail, grant of—No positive role had been attributed to the accused in the commission of the offence—Complicity of the accused as reflected from his statement recorded under S.1

1999 MLD 2495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ASIF ALI ZARDARI, SENATOR VS S.H.O., POLICE STATION QILLA GUJJAR SINGH

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 & 15—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Quashing of F. I. R. —Jurisdiction of High Court —F.I.R. was registered against petitioner and petitioner had neither joined -investigation, nor placed his version before Investigation Agency–Interference of High Court in investigation conducted by police—Scope—High Court interfered in the matter where prosecution was launched mala fide and no case on the face of record was made out—Constitutional petition being premature was not maintainable.