Section 15 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997

Section 15 : Punishment for contravention of Section 14

2013 PCrLJ 910 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Rai MUHAMMAD ASIF NAWAZ VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 15—Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, R. 216—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.25 & 199—Constitutional petition—Remissions—Discrimination—Petitioner was convicted under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and his grievance was that he was entitled to special remission under Rule 216 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978—Validity—Policy of remissions formulated and issued by Punjab Government on 27-1-1993, did not offend any clause of the Constitution or any provision of law—Order passed by authorities declining special remissions to petitioner being convict/prisoner under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not suffer from any legal infirmity—Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

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.

2013 YLR 1687 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

UMEED VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 11, 15 & 16—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 34—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 38 & 39—Possession of narcotics, operating premises or machinery for manufacture of narcotic drugs, etc., aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences, common intention—Bail, grant of –Implication on basis of confessional statement of co-accused made before the police—Effect—Accused allegedly supplied chemicals to co-accused persons for preparation of heroin—Sole evidence against accused was the confessional statement of a co-accused made before the Investigating Officer–Such confessional statement of co-accused was not admissible under Arts. 38 and 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Case was one of further inquiry into guilt of accused—Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.

2013 MLD 1876 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD ALTAF VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9(c), 15 & 16—Possession of narcotics, operating premises or machinery for manufacture of narcotic drugs, etc., aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Bail, refusal of—Recovery of contraband and chemicals used for making the same corroborated by people of the locality—Effect—Accused was arrested from a flat on basis of information of an informant and 1100 grams of heroin was recovered from his possession—Chemical drums and cans used in manufacturing heroin were also allegedly recovered from the flat—All the persons of the locality in their statements before the investigating officer supported the recovery of chemical and other articles—Person who had rented out the flat to the accused also corroborated version of the prosecution—Entire quantity of contraband recovered from the accused was sent to chemical examiner, who opined the same to be heroin powder—Recovery of heroin powder and chemicals used for manufacturing the same was supported by habitants of the building, which was sufficient evidence to connect the accused in the case—Bail application of accused 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 SCMR 119 SUPREME-COURT

MEHMOOD HASSAN HARVI VS THE STATE

15—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188—Recovery of narcotics—Review of Supreme Court judgment—On the basis of spy information a raid was conducted and Charas weighing 400 kilograms was recovered—Accused was arrested and he was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years but High Court enhanced the sentence to imprisonment for life—Supreme Court in judgment under review set aside the sentence awarded by High Court and restored that of Trial Court—Plea raised by accused was that the conviction originally recorded by Trial Court as well enhanced by High Court was based on no evidence, therefore, judgment of acquittal should have been recorded—Validity—At the time of passing judgment under review, the Bench of Supreme Court, while taking into consideration and that too without discussing implication of a letter, did not consider other material available on record—Prosecution was duty bound to establish the case but if the prosecution evidence produced before Trial Court and on the basis of which the sentence had been enhanced by High Court, the court should have taken into consideration all evidence available on record—Supreme Court recalled its earlier judgment and appeal filed by accused would be deemed to have been pending for rehearing of the same—Petition was allowed.

2012 PLD 383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL WASAY VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9(c) & 15—Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001, Sched. V—Possession of narcotics, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Bail, refusal of—Ephedrine as a controlled substance—Scope—Vehicle of accused persons had been intercepted at a checkpoint and after their search, 25 kilograms of controlled substance, Ephedrine, was found in their possession, which the accused persons were carrying without any license/permit—Contentions of the accused persons was that they were arrested on the conspiracy of the owner of a pharmaceutical company, who provided the vehicle and controlled substance to the accused persons for transportation and subsequently informed the Anti-Narcotics Force officials about it; that accused persons had some business dealings with the said owner of pharmaceutical company and he involved the accused persons in the case to get rid of his liability; that officials of the Anti-Narcotics Force had investigated the matter and found force in the contentions of the accused persons; that police investigation officer also found the contentions of the accused persons to be plausible and placed them in column No.3 of the report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C; that accused persons were no more required for further investigation, and that their implication in the case could only be considered after recording of evidence—Validity—Ephedrine was a controlled substance falling under Schedule V of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001, therefore, possession of same clearly fell within the ambit of S.6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Keeping Ephedrine without any licence or lawful permission was in violation of S.6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was punishable under S.9 of the said Act—Contention of the accused persons that they were trapped by the owner of a pharmaceutical company with whom they had some business dealings, was not supported by any evidence—Investigation officer had placed the accused in column No.3 of the challan and observed that controlled substance had been recovered from the accused persons and their guilt had to be decided by the court in accordance with the law—Since huge quantity of controlled substance was recovered from the accused persons and they had no valid licence for the same, no ground for grant of bail was made out—Bail petitions of accused persons were dismissed, in circumstances.

2012 YLR 2387 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL QUDOOS VS State

497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15—Possession of narcotics, aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry–Police had apprehended the co-accused from whom 27 kilograms of narcotic was found and he disclosed that he was being patronized by the accused (police-constable), who had with him an amount of Rs.450, 000—Accused was subsequently arrested by the police and the said amount was allegedly recovered from him—Contentions of the accused were that he had been- involved in the case under a conspiracy by the inimical Investigating Officer so as to ruin his career, and that the Investigating Officer had failed to collect any incriminating evidence against him—Validity—Although F.I.R. revealed that Rs, 450,000 had been recovered from the accused but it did not disclose as to what this recovery was meant for—Co-Âaccused had not alleged that he had paid the said amount to the accused for purchasing narcotics from him—Although such a heavy amount in the pocket of a police-constable raised eyebrows but without any auxiliary linking evidence, the accused could not be deemed to be a sponsor or patron of the co-accused—No incriminating evidence existed against the accused except for the ambiguous confessional statement of the co-accused–Investigation officer had conducted the investigation inefficiently and in-completely—Case of the accused constituted need for further inquiry into his guilt as envisaged by S. 497(2), Cr. P. C—Bail application was allowed and he was admitted to bail.

2012 YLR 85 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD NAEEM-UL-HAQ VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Ss. 497(5) & 498—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 15 & 51—Possessing narcotic—Petition for cancellation of pre-arrest bail—Petitioner was earlier arrested in a case registered under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at the instance of S.H.O./complainant—Petitioner was found innocent in the investigation and report for his discharge was submitted and he was acquitted from the charge—Inquiry transpired that S.H.O. had falsely implicated the petitioner in said case in collusion with respondents—Respondents having been granted bail, petitioner had filed petition for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents—Sufficient material was available to connect the respondents with the commission of the offence, punishment of which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Respondents, in circumstances, were required by the police for further investigation—Petitioner’s innocence having been proved during the investigation and thereafter, his acquittal from the charge, prima facie had proved that the recovered ‘charas’ belonged to the respondents—No ill-will or element of mala fide on the part of the prosecution was found, accused/respondents were not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, which was an extraordinary relief—Order granting pre-arrest bail to S.H.O., was also patently illegal as the Special Judge had ordered not to arrest him without permission of the court—If bail granting orders were not recalled, Investigating Agency was likely to be deprived of its right to investigate and collect further evidence against respondents—Impugned orders, in circumstances, having resulted in miscarriage of justice, order granting pre-arrest bail to respondents, were cancelled in circumstances.

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 YLR 1206 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Syed ALI QASIM GILLANI VS State

497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c)/15/22—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Raw heroin weighing 214.5 Kilograms had been recovered from a consignment of cement exported in five containers—Deeper appreciation of record was not permissible at bail stage and prima facie connection of accused with the commission of offence had to be found through tentative assessment—No direct allegation was made against the accused in the F.I.R., statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. or the challan—No recovery whatsoever had been made from the accused—Heroin, admittedly, was not recovered from the three containers exported through the accused—Report of Chemical Examiner was not available with the prosecution to confirm that the recovered substance was heroin—No seizure report had been brought on record—Prosecution had failed to successfully explain the delay of three months in lodging the F.I.R.—Out of nine accused persons five accused were absconders and three accused had been admitted to bail by Trial Court—Question as to whether the present accused had connived with other co-accused in exporting heroin along with cement to other country required evidence—Case against accused required further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.—Accused was admitted to bail in circum-stances.

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 PCrLJ 1817 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MOHSIN ABBAS VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15—Possessing and trafficking of narcotic drugs—Bail, grant of—Quantity of the recovered narcotic substance exceeded one kilogram by 200 grams, which had made the case of accused, a borderline case—Accused was stated to be a previous non-convict and did not have any criminal antecedents—Challan had already been submitted before the Trial Court; and further incarceration of accused was of no consequence to the prosecution case—Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

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 SCMR 61 SUPREME-COURT

THE STATE through Director-General, Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi VS ABDUL GHANI

497(5)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 12, 13 & 15—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Possession etc. of narcotic drugs—Bail, cancellation of—High Court had erred in entering into the facts of the case and making an incorrect observation that accused was not found in exclusive possession of the narcotics—According to the prosecution case and the. Investigating Officer 2.610 kilograms heroin and 1.780 kilograms “Charas” was recovered from the possession of accused, which he was carrying on his motorcycle—Accused, thus, was prima facie involved in an offence falling within the prohibition contained in S.497(1), Cr.P.C. and he was not entitled to bail—Submission of challan in the Court and a case of further inquiry having been made out, had no legal force in the given circumstances of the case—Possibility of further inquiry did exist in every case, but it was not possible to release the accused on bail notwithstanding his involvement in a heinous criminal case, particularly in which a considerable number of members of the society” including children, girls, men and women fell prey to drug trafficking—Bail allowed to accused by High Court was cancelled in circumstances.

2010 PLD 498 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

State VS Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI

Ss. 9(c), 15, 47 & 48—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.435 & 439—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Possession of narcotics—Appeal for enhancement of sentence—Competence—Accused was convicted and sentenced to two years and eleven months’ R.I. on the basis of confessional statement made by accused and complainant had filed appeal under S.48 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with Ss.435 & 439, Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence—Contention of accused was that appeal was not maintainable as under the law State was not competent to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence; as no provision, expressly and exactly existed with regard to the enhancement of the sentence; that S.48 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had provided only appeal against the order of a Special Court and it was not clear as to whether appeal was against the conviction, acquittal or enhancement of sentence—Validity—Right of appeal was a creation of statute and it was granted in one place and denied in the other; it could not be read into one where it was not provided and unless a right of appeal was clearly and expressly given by the State it would not exist nor was there any scope for inferring such right by implication—There could be cases and circumstances which were not covered by the express provisions of law—Neither any provision covering such cases existed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. nor in the special law enacted for a specific purpose and it could not be said that courts had no power to do justice or to redress wrong merely because no express provision of law could be found to meet the requirements of a case—Every Court, in absence of express provisions of law for that purpose, be deemed to possess as inherent in its very constitution all such powers as were necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice—In spite of there being ouster of power under Ss.435 & 439, Cr.P.C. revisional powers of High Court could not be taken away—By invoking the powers under Art. 199 of the Constitution, High Court could judicially review and set the proceedings in right direction—Though appeal was not maintainable, but as the appellant could invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, appeal was converted into constitutional petition.

2010 YLR 2258 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SAFDAR VS State

497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15—Possession of narcotics—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Charas was not recovered from the direct custody of accused—As to whether accused had knowledge of presence of narcotic in the car in question or he shared knowledge with his co-accused that they were carrying narcotic with them, was a question which would be determined after recording of evidence—Except presence of accused in the car in question, no other circumstance had come on the record indicating his connection with the offence or even the car—All those facts had made the case as one of further inquiry—Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

2010 YLR 2046 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

THE STATE through Deputy Director VS MUHAMMAD SAFDAR

497(5)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13—Possession of narcotics and arms—Cancellation of bail, petition for—Accused had been allowed bail by considering the maximum period for his sentence and by holding that the offence committed by accused did not fall under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Accused appeared to be ill and keeping him in jail would be injurious to his life—Case being not fit for cancellation of bail, petition for cancellation of bail, was dismissed.

2010 MLD 1891 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mst. ZOHRA BIBI VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15-Possession of narcotics—Bail, grant of—Quantity of narcotics recovered from accused was on the upper limit prescribed in S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused was stated to be previous non-convict and behind the bars since 14-7-2010, (date of arrest)—Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

2010 MLD 1854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Syed MOHSIN RAZA VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15—Possession of narcotics—Bail, grant of—Two co-accused had already been admitted to bail and case of accused was not distinguishable from them—Rule of consistency would come into play in case of accused, in circumstances—Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.

2010 MLD 1045 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD RASHID VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15—Possessing narcotic—Bail, refusal of—Narcotic allegedly recovered from accused was of heavy quantity—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was a special enactment having its own scheme and object—Intention of the legislature was evident from its different provisions that it was designed to curb the menace of narcotic drugs in the society, which was speedily increasing day by day—Offence with regard to narcotics, was not only against the society, but the mankind as well and thus entailed heavy punishment—Side of accused had not been able to show anything to say that accused had been involved in the case for any ulterior motive of the complainant or others—Each criminal case was to be adjudged in the background of its own facts and circumstances—Accused, in view of circumstances, was not entitled to bail; his bail petition was dismissed.

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 1438 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GULZAR AHMED VS State

Ss. 15 & 48—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Sufficient evidence was available against both co-accused for their conviction—Said accused having failed to rebut or shake evidence of two prosecutions witnesses, they were rightly convicted—Counsel for said co-accused, conceding to their conviction, did not press appeal against the conviction, however, he requested for reducing their sentence to the imprisonment, which they had already undergone—Nothing was available to show that said co-accused were involved in any criminal case prior to the present case—Both co-accused had remained in custody for few months less than ten years—Such was the sufficient punishment they were awarded for the offence committed by them— Appeal by said co-accused was dismissed as not pressed, however their sentence was reduced to the imprisonment which they had already undergone, they could be released immediately.

2010 PCrLJ 1438 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GULZAR AHMED VS State

Ss.9(b)(c), 15 & 48—Appreciation of evidence—Neither the Investigating Officer had said anything about accused nor public prosecutor requested for trying him—Trial Court not only decided to try accused on its own initiative, when no evidence was available against him, but convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, without an iota of evidence against him—Two witnesses examined by the prosecution, did not implicate accused at all—Conduct of the Trial Judge in convicting accused and sentencing him to life imprisonment without any evidence against him, could not be overlooked—Such conduct on the part of a senior judicial officer, would have the effect of undermining confidence and creating sense of insecurity among the general public—State Counsel had also conceded to allow appeal of accused—Appeal of accused, accordingly was allowed and he was honourably acquitted.

2009 SCMR 1109 SUPREME-COURT

MAHMOOD HASSAN HARVI VS State

15—Reappraisal of evidence—Accused had been involved on the spy information received by complainant and thereafter machinery of law was put in action—Trial Court convicted the accused under S.15, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to 10 years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.5 lac—High Court enhanced the sentence to imprisonment for life and fine was also enhanced to Rs. ten lac—Validity—High Court erred in enhancing the sentence of accused, especially when the documentary evidence had been totally misread by the court below in its true perspective which was an unproved document and without producing either scribe/sender or the recipient of the same—Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored—Order of confiscation of property passed by the Trial Court in absentia, as at the relevant time accused was in jail and no opportunity of hearing was provided to him to substantiate his case, was also set aside.

2009 SCMR 1109 SUPREME-COURT

MAHMOOD HASSAN HARVI VS State

15—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185—Appeal to Supreme Court—Maintainability—Accused was convicted by Special Judge and sentenced to undergo ten years’ R.I. along with a fine of the Rs.5,00,000 or in default to further undergo six months’ R.I.—High Court, on appeal, though maintained the conviction, yet sentence of imprisonment was enhanced from ten years to life imprisonment and amount of fine was also increased from Rs.5 lac to Rs.10 lac—Appeal before Supreme Court filed by the accused through his counsel whose Wakalatnama, as pointed out by the office, was available on record, yet record was silent as to whether the accused in pursuance of judgment of the High Court had surrendered or was taken into custody—Maintainability of appeal to Supreme Court, was under jeopardy in circumstances.

2009 SCMR 1109 SUPREME-COURT

MAHMOOD HASSAN HARVI VS State

Ss. 15 & 13—Reappraisal of evidence—Allegation/charge against the accused was that he had on telephone directed a Travelling Agent, to issue a ticket to one of the accused persons, who was allegedly involved in transporting the contraband material—Copy of the memo. prepared in pursuance of the direction allegedly given by the accused to the Travelling Agent, was produced at the trial yet, neither original thereof was tendered in evidence, nor compared with the memo, nor author thereof was’ examined so as to prove the same, therefore, presumption could not have been drawn that the document in question was true—Special Prosecutor had conceded that case of the accused was covered by S.15, Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997, as only allegation of aiding, abetting and facilitating the co-accused was attributed to him—Case of the accused, in circumstances, was covered by S.15 of the Act instead of S.13 thereof.

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 MLD 122 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MOMIN KHAN VS State

Ss. (9)(c) & 15—Appreciation of evidence—Alleged recovery of narcotics was effected from. accused on a busy road which was always crowded by heavy traffic and Investigating Officer opted to make the two police officials witnesses to the recovery and even one of them later on was abandoned by the prosecution—Statement of prosecution- witness with regard to form and quantity of contraband, which was in contradiction with the quantity produced in the court, had thrown serious doubt on the credentials of prosecution making the recovery doubtful—Non-association of an accused who allegedly decamped from the spot and non-arraying him as an accused by the prosecution, was another glaring defect, which had created doubts in the mind of a prudent man, that the real culprit had been exonerated by the prosecution—Car from which alleged contraband charas was recovered had not been produced by the prosecution despite the objection by defence counsel, which was the case property subject to examination of the alleged secret cavities of the car—Case of co-accused was that there was no evidence against him as he was neither present with accused at the time of recovery of alleged narcotic nor any contraband had been recovered either from his direct possession or on his pointation—Statement of accused was not at all admissible in evidence qua the guilt of co-accused—Nothing had been brought on record that in other cases allegedly registered against him he was convicted—No evidence was on record that co-accused either facilitated, induced or helped in any manner or was instrumental in the commission of offence by accused—Conviction of co-accused under S.15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, could not be maintained—Conviction and sentences awarded to accused persons by the Trial Court, were set aside, both were acquitted of the charge levelled against them and were set at liberty.

2009 YLR 1029 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MALITA SYED SHAH VS State

497 [As amended by Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act (VI of 2006)]—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c)/15/51–Bail, refusal of—Accused who was a woman, had been involved in a case for being in possession of the huge quantity of heroin, a contraband of the worst nature and she made an abortive attempt for its transportation abroad—Was not possible at bail stage to infer that case was totally based upon false evidence or that it was a case of no evidence—Amendment of S.497, Cr. P. C. through the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006, was not applicable to the cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused a woman involved in such case could not be released on bail, unless the Court, after examining the entire material brought on record, came to a tentative conclusion that material to connect accused with the commission of the offence was quite lacking—Inference drawn by the counsel for accused for grant of bail under S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by conjunctive application of the Provisions of S.5-A(8) of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 and the other laws referred by him could not be accepted—Material available on the record prima facie, had connected accused with the alleged offence—Case was not fit for the grant of bail to accused, in circumstances.

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 MLD 1002 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ROOH-ULLAH VS State

S.15—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Accused was not arrested at the time of recovery of the “Poppy Pods”—Two co-accused had allegedly disclosed name of the accused before the police as their associate/owner of the material—Poppy Pods or other such material was not recovered from the person of said accused or on his pointation—Said accused had been convicted simply on the basis of the allegations of co-accused made before Investigating Officer—That part of evidence was not admissible on three grounds; firstly, that it was hearsay evidence; secondly it was part of a confession before Investigating Officer and thirdly it was statement of a co-accused only—No other evidence was available to connect said accused with the crime—Case of accused was of no evidence and he had been convicted merely on the basis of presumption, which was not permissible under the principles governing administration of criminal justice—Case of accused being highly doubtful he was not proved to be connected with the case, he could not be convicted on available record—Accused was acquitted extending him benefit of doubt.

2008 MLD 1002 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ROOH-ULLAH VS State

Ss. 4, 5, 15 & 9(c)—Appreciation of evidence—Trial Court while convicting and sentencing two accused, had adopted view that when both of them were arrested, they Were gathering opium Poppy as envisaged in S.4 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act. 1997—Said opinion of the Trial Court could not be agreed to because putting huge quantity of `crushed Poppy Pods and straws’ in vehicle and taking it from one place to another, was a process, which did not fall within the meaning of `gather’ used in S.4 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Both said accused persons; in circumstances were wrongly held guilty. under S.4 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Conviction of said two accused which was on wrong premises, was not sustainable—Conviction and sentence of said two accused, were set aside and their case was remanded for retrial and fresh decision according to law.

2008 YLR 2903 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

QAMAR DIN VS State

Ss.9(c)/15—Appreciation of evidence—Accused had admitted the time and place of recovery—Recovery witnesses who had no malice or ulterior motive to depose falsely against the accused, had made consistent statements without any material contradiction or discrepancy—Defence plea was merely a bull and cock story—Fake recovery of huge quantity of heroin worth millions in the drug market could not possibly be planted against the accused—police “officials were natural and independent witnesses, who had proved the recovery of heroin from the accused beyond any shadow of doubt through their unimpeachable evidence—Accused were liable for the whole quantity of narcotics recovered from their personal possession as well as from the vehicle being in their constructive possession—Contention that accused could only be liable for the quantity of heroin sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis, had no force—Conviction and sentence of accused were maintained in circumstances.

2008 YLR 2903 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

QAMAR DIN VS State

Ss.9(c)/15—Appreciation of evidence—Police witnesses—Credibility—Reluctance of general public to become witness in narcotics cases is a judicially recognized fact and court has to consider the statements of official witnesses, for which no legal bar exists—Police officials are equally good witnesses and can be relied upon, if their testimony remains un-shattered during cross-examination.

2008 YLR 2903 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

QAMAR DIN VS State

Ss. 9(c)/15—Evidence— Police witÂnesses–Credibility—Police officials are as good witnesses as others and their evidence should not be discarded on this score alone.

2008 YLR 2903 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

QAMAR DIN VS State

Ss.9(c)/15—Appreciation of evidence—Accused was simply a driver of the hired vehicle from which heroin was recovered which fact had been proved on record—CoÂaccused had hired the said vehicle–No narcotics had been recovered from the accused—Investigating Officer had challaned the accused on the basis of statement of his co-accused, which statement having been made before police, was of no evidentiary value—Accused could be presumed of having no knowledge that his co-accused were carrying narcotics in the shopper lying in the ‘Dikki’ of the car—Accused was acquitted in circumÂstances.

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 932 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State

426—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 15—Suspension of sentence—Accused could not be deemed to have acquired knowledge of concealment of narcotics by co-accused—Accused was simply driving a motorcycle—No recovery was effected from his person—Conviction, prima facie, had been based on presumption—Accused had made out a case for suspension of sentence—Sentence of accused was suspended accordingly.

2008 MLD 291 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ZAHID LATEEF VS State

2008 MLD 19 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD QASIM VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c)/15—Bail, grant of—Although the offence allegedly committed by the accused was grave in nature but he was behind the bars for the last more than two years without any tangible progress in the trial—Right to life and liberty was a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution to a citizen which included the right of accused to a speedy trial—Accused could not be detained in jail for an indefinite period without a trial contrary to the Constitution and law—Co-accused had been allowed bail by High Court on the ground of delay in the trial—Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

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 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 873 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

State VS MUNAWAR HUSSAIN

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

2007 MLD 1994 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FAZAZ ABBAS VS State

—Ss.9(c) & 15—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.265-C &
412—Appreciation. of evidence—Accused after submission of challan, were produced in the court and case was adjourned for appoint-went of counsel by accused as well as for distribution o

2007 MLD 1852 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ VS State

—S.497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c)/15—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Special Prosecutor Anti-Narcotic Force, in all fairness had submitted that after a thorough probe, accused had been found to be innocent as a l

2007 MLD 1372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

State VS FARUUKH NADEEM through Branch Manager

—S. 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c)/15, 74 & 32—Release of vehicle on Superdari—Validity—Trial Court while ordering interim release of the .vehicle to the respondent company had rightly observed that no evidence w

2007 YLR 3130 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

OBIAQWU EZEKEKE VS State

—-S. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15—Bail, grant o/~–Further inquiry—.Nothing had been recovered from accused ‘s possession during investigation of the case–Accused had been implicated in the case upon state

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 YLR 3095 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS State

—Ss. 497(2) & 561-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 15 & 51(1)—Bail, grant of—-Further inquiry—Prosecution’s own case was that no narcotic substance had been recovered from physical possession of the accused—Nothing

2006 YLR 2960 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 15, 47 & 48—Appreciation of evidence—Witnesses, who had carried the raid, effected the seizure and arrested accused, though were all official witnesses, but nothing was on record to suggest any ill-will against any of the prosecution witn

2006 YLR 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Dr. EMMANUEL ONUWABUCHI KEKE VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 15—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K—Appreciation of evidence—Accused had not been arrested at the spot and no narcotic substance had been recovered from his possession during investigation of the case—F.I.R. itself showed

2006 YLR 1217 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD YASEEN VS State

–Ss. 6, 9 & 15—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K—Application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. for acquittal—Trial Court had misread the F.I.R. as it was nowhere given in F.I.R. that Charas in question was purchased from the accused—Accused Wrigh

2006 PCRLJ 1962 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KHURRAM ZEESHAN VS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, POLICE STATION ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE, FAISALABAD

—Ss. 9(c) & 15—Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), S.7—Drugs (Licensing, Registering and Advertising) Rules, 1976, Rule 8—Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988, Rr.2(e), 15(iii), 17(2)(3), 21(i)(B&C) & Sched. B—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional

2006 MLD 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ alias SAFFA VS State

–Ss. 9(c) & 15—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516-A—Appreciation of evidence—Framing of charge—Object—Error in charge sheet as to place of recovery—Effect—Accused were arrested and tried for carrying Charas weighing 80 Kgs. in a veh

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 1728 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Malik MUSHTAQ alias BLACK PRINCE VS State

—Ss. 337, 338, 265-C & 439—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 15 & 47—Granting pardon to approver —Challan was submitted in Trial Court and one of accused persons was declared approver under S.337, Cr.P.C. and was granted p

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 1340 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Haji NOOR-UL-ISLAM VS State

–Ss. 221, 265-C & 265-D — Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15—Framing of charge—Non-supply of requisite copies of documents—Petitioner/accused, in revision, had called in question charge-sheet framed by Trial Court on t

2005 YLR 1062 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Sheikh MUHAMMAD AHMAD VS State

—-S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15—Bail, refusal of—Accused had sought bail on sole ground of delay in trial, but order sheet had shown that alleged delay in the trial was caused from accused side and not due t

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

2005 PCRLJ 603 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD IJAZ VS State

–S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 15—Bail, grant of—House from where narcotics were allegedly recovered did not belong to accused, but belonged to co-accused—Nothing was recovered at the instance of accused—Pro

2005 MLD 943 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL WAHEED VS State

—Ss. 86, 87, 76 & 561-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 16, 15 & 9(c)—Application under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.—Applicant had been arrested in a case registered at Lahore for an offence under Ss. 16, 15 & 9(c) of the Control of Nar

2005 MLD 501 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ZAREEF KHAN VS State

—-Ss. 9(c) & 15—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution had stated that six packets of samples were sent to Chemical Analyzer, whereas report of Chemical Analyzer had shown that he had received only two packets—Property received by Chemical Analyzer,

2005 PLD 4 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

KARL JOHN JOSEPH VS THE STATE

—-S.15—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.417 & 439(4)(a)–Acquittal of accused—Trial Court had acquitted accused person from charge under S.15 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997–Finding of acquittal could not be converted into convic

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 1932 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

REHMAT SHAH AFRIDI VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9(c) & 15—Appreciation of evidence—Recovery witnesses who had no reason to falsely depose against the accused had corroborated each other—Chemical Examiner’s report had confirmed that the narcotics recovered from the accused was “Charas”—H

2004 PCRLJ 1273 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

JOSHUA CHIGBOGU VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9 & 15—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution had established its case against accused. beyond reasonable doubt—Trial Court, in circumstances had correctly recorded conviction of accused—Accused had not assailed his conviction, but had praye

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

2003 YLR 1035 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUNAWAR HUSSAIN MANJ VS THE STATE

—-Ss.9(c) & 15—Appreciation of evidence–Judicial confession of co-accused involving the accused had been recorded .in clear violation of law and without observing the legal formalities—Even otherwise co-accused had resiled from their confessional s

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

2003 PCRLJ 1250 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MEHBOOBUR REHMAN VS THE STATE

—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/9/12/13 & 15—Bail, grant of—Accused earlier was granted bail and since then he was attending hearing and remained on bail for about four and half years, but thereafter bail granted to

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.

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 755 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHER MUHAMMAD VS STATE

—-S. 9(c)/15—Appreciation of evidence—Lady accused could possibly carry ten kilograms of “Charas” on her body for monetary consideration or otherwise—Case being one of search of accused and not of search of a dwelling house or a closed premises, a

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 SCMR 1271 SUPREME-COURT

GUL ZAMAN VS STATE

Ss. 496, 497 & 498—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9, 15 & 51—Bail—Notwithstanding the bar contained in S. 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 bail could be granted to an accused person—Applicability of Ss. 496, 497 & 498, Cr.P.C. was not totally barred in respect of cases under the said Act—Prohibition was only regarding the offence punishable with death thereunder while bail could be allowed in other suitable cases.

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 3147 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SARDAR KHAN VS STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S. 9(c)/15—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.439—Revision–Accused had sought the reversal of the impugned order of the Special Court whereby the application moved by them under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. had been dismissed—Propriety, correctness and legality of the order were to be seen in the revision petition—High Court could not be satisfied as to how the said impugned order was incorrect, improper or illegal—Matter was sub judice after submission of challan before the Trial Court which had got every right to decide the application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. in its discretion—Reason given by Trial Court that the inquiry report relied upon by the accused was simply a piece of evidence collected by the Inquiry Officer in their favour just like what the Investigating Officer had collected in favour of prosecution and that both the collections of evidence needed proper thrashing during trial in order to determine the truth and falsehood for which both the parties were required to produce their evidence for just conclusion of the case, could not be said to be incorrect by any standard; especially when the two important recovery witnesses had not been examined by the Inquiry Officer—Judicial inquiry could not be given such importance as submitted by the accused otherwise the whole purpose of investigation and trial was to be set at naught—Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.

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.

1998 PLD 146 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NASIRA BIBI VS THE STATE

497—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4–Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9, 15 & 51—Bail–Accused was arrested red-handed at the spot with a packet which according to the report of Chemical Examiner contained heroin—Offence against accused by virtue of quantity of heroin recovered from her, no doubt, did not fall in the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C., but such fact, ipso facto, could not create a right of bail in view of S.51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 placing an embargo on the grant of bail—Allegations of mala fides, prima facie, were not tenable—Courts could refuse bail to a lady accused charged with serious allegations—Accused was refused bail in circumstances.

1996 PLD 304 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NAWAB DIN VS THE STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 Ss. 9, 11, 13, 15, 16 & 17 — Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 prospective in nature — Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 cannot be termed merely a procedural law but it materially affects the rights of the individuals and, therefore, cannot be permitted to have retrospective effect, hence it is prospective in operation.