Section 25 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997

Section 25 : Mode of making searches and arrest

 

2020  YLRN  121   Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

MANZOOR AHMED VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotics—Mode of making searches and arrests—Bail, refusal of—Police witnesses—Scope—Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 7 kgs and 100 grams of charas—Accused was directly charged in the FIR—Briefcase from which the huge quantity of charas was recovered was being carried by the accused—Such a huge quantity of charas could not be planted falsely—Contention of accused that no independent witnesses were associated in the recovery proceedings was not tenable, as the association of private witnesses in such like cases was excluded by virtue of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Police witnesses were as good witnesses as any other public witness, till some adverse circumstances were brought on record for not believing an official witness—Prima facie case against accused was made out and he was not entitled for concession of bail—Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019  YLR  2717   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

KAAZIM HUSSAIN VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 25 & 51—Recovery of narcotics—Bail, refusal of—Police witnesses—Effect—Charas weighing 1600 grams and ice (Sheesha) weighing 200 grams was recovered from accused—Plea raised by accused was that no public witnesses were associated to recovery proceedings—Validity—Any person accused of spreading a deadly poison, i.e., narcotics, in any society was not type of person who could qualify for grant of discretionary relief unless such person had demonstrated that he was entitled to grant of bail in view of principles contained in S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.—Members of public were reluctant to offer themselves as witnesses in criminal cases and in such circumstances no adverse inference could be drawn against prosecution for not associating such like persons as witnesses—Members of police force were competent witnesses in eyes of law and could be credited with veracity unless it was demonstrated that they were false witnesses who had maliciously accused an innocent person of commission of offence for ulterior motives—Bail was dismissed in circumstances.

2019  YLR  2287   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SARTAJ KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Excise Officials as recovery witnesses—Competence—Principles—Prosecution case was that 35-kilograms of charas was recovered from the truck trailer of accused—Ocular account was furnished by complainant and mashir—Record showed that 35-kilograms of charas contained in 35-packets and arms and ammunition were recovered from the secret cavity of truck trailer driven by the accused—Two hundred grams of charas was separated as samples from each packet for chemical examination—Circumstances suggested that the accused was found responsible for transportation of narcotics—Nothing was available on record to suggest that the said truck trailer was either hired by someone else or he had no knowledge about the availability of narcotic substance therein—In the present case, Excise Officials were witnesses, who were competent witnesses and their evidence could not be discarded only for the reason that they were Excise Officials—Said witnesses had furnished straight forward and confidence inspiring evidence—Nothing was on record to show that said witnesses had deposed against the accused maliciously or out of any animus—Circumstances suggested that it could not be believed that the Excise Officials would plant such a huge quantity of narcotic along with arms and ammunitions against the accused at their own sources—Objection of defence that the complainant had acted as Investigating Officer in the case and that all the witnesses were Excise Officials was of no help to the accused as there was no bar in the law for a complainant to act as Investigating Officer of the case—Witnesses had deposed in the same line to support the prosecution case and despite cross-examination at length, the defence had failed to point out any dent or to extract any material contradiction fatal to the prosecution case—Circumstances established that prosecution had succeeded to bring the guilt of accused to home and had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2019  YLR  2287   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SARTAJ KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution case was that 35-kilograms charas was recovered from the truck trailer of accused—Defence had objected that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Validity—In view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded and non-inclusion of any private person was not a serious defect to vitiate the conviction of accused—Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019  YLR  2052   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AMIR VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 25 & 51—Possession of Charas weighing 3700 grams—Bail, refusal of—Huge quantity of narcotic substance—Scope—Further inquiry—Scope—Petitioner contended that provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had not been followed and real culprit, in the offence, had been benefitted—Validity—Application of S. 103, Cr.P.C had specifically been excluded by virtue of S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 , therefore, Trial Court had rightly attended the plea of the petitioner—Accused while seeking bail in a case, falling within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., was required to bring his case within the meaning of further inquiry not by raising defence but from collected material , which too, by tentative referral thereof—Section 51, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, prima facie, had created bar in granting bail in such like cases, therefore, the bail, normally, need not be granted on mere claim of further inquiry —Contention of the petitioner, regarding his substitution by releasing real culprit, had no substance—In absence of any serious animosity there appeared no reason for the police to implant such huge quantity of charas, which, admittedly, the petitioner had not attempted to establish by placing any documentary material—Aspects like arrangement of measurement tool etc. could not be touched/examined at bail stage as such like questions would always require a response from the concerned—Petitioner had failed to make out a case for the concession of bail—Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

2019  YLR  1897   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BAHAUDDIN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Police officials as sole recovery witnesses—Competence—Principles—Prosecution case was that 269 slabs of charas, each slab weighing 1-kilogram, total 269-kilograms were recovered from the secret cavities of a vehicle, driven by accused, out of which, 15-kilograms were sealed for samples while remaining charas was sealed separately—Report in that regard had been received in positive—Accused, in circumstances, was liable to be held responsible for having only 15-kilograms of charas in his possession which offence attracted provision of S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused had been convicted by the trial court for life imprisonment accordingly—Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond any shadow of doubt—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2019  YLR  1795   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SABIR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Police officials as sole recovery witnesses—Competence—Principles—Prosecution case was that 144-kilograms of charas was recovered from the vehicle of accused persons—Prosecution witnesses were Police Officials—Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of provision of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Validity—Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded by S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in such cases—Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019  PCrLJ  1302   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

TAHIR-UZ-ZAMAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Police officials as sole recovery witnesses—Competence—Principles—Prosecution case was that 10-kilograms of charas was recovered from the possession of the accused—Prosecution witnesses were police officials— Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Validity—In view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, applicability  of  S.  103,  Cr.P.C. had been excluded and non-inclusion of any private witness was not a serious defect to vitiate the conviction—Evidence of Police Officials would be competent and could not be discarded, only for the reason that they were Police Officials—Police Officials had furnished straight-forward and confidence inspiring evidence and there was nothing on record to show that they deposed against the accused maliciously or out of any animus—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2019  PCrLJ  622   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Sheikh RIAZUDDIN VS State

Ss. 9(c), 13, 15 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possessing, trafficking of narcotics, possessing assets derived from narcotics, aiding, abetting or associating in narcotic offences—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution case was that 1745-kilograms of charas was recovered on the pointation of accused—Prosecution witnesses were police officials—Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Validity—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had excluded the applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases—Non-inclusion of any private witness was not a serious defect to vitiate the conviction of accused—Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

2019  MLD  1075   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL GHANI VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possessing of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Non-association of private witness—Effect—Prosecution case was that on personal search of accused persons, 5400-grams charas, 420-grams opium and three bottle liquor were recovered—On their pointation, 71-kilogram charas in two fiber drums were recovered from the kachizameen, 52-kilograms charas from a car belonging to accused and 170 bottles of desi liquor from the cart owned by accused persons were recovered—Prosecution witnesses were police officials—Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Validity—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excluded the applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

2019  MLD  962   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GADA ALI ABRO VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Police officials as sole recovery witnesses—Competence—Principles—Prosecution case was that 383 kilograms and 900 grams charas in different packets were recovered from the possession and pointation of accused—Record transpired that case of prosecution rested upon the evidence of complainant and mashir, supported with the positive report of Chemical Analyzer—Both the witnesses had given full account of arrest of accused from the pointed place and recovery of charas and had supported fully the contents of FIR and memo of arrest and recovery as well as corroborated the evidence of each other—Report of Chemical Analyzer showed that total 350 khaki paper envelops, each bearing one seal, were received for analysis—All the seals were intact, which after the analysis declared as charas—Said witnesses had identified the accused and case property to be the same present/available before the Trial Court at the time of recording their evidence and, during their lengthy cross-examination, defence had failed to shatter the truthfulness of their evidence thus their testimony remained unshaken—Defence had alleged that no witness from the locality was associated to witness the recovery, but S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had excluded the provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Neither the alleged recovery of the charas could be held as doubtful due to non-association of any person of the locality to witness the search or recovery nor the deposition of witnesses lost its evidentiary value merely on the grounds that the witnesses were officials of Anti Narcotics Force—Accused had failed to point out any animosity or ulterior motive on the part of complainant for his false implication and foisting upon him the huge quantity of charas—Mere assertion of accused that he was involved falsely in the case due to political enmity was of no consequence being an afterthought—Such defence plea had neither been suggested to the prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination nor did even the accused stated so in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.—Defence witnesses had not uttered even a single word regarding any such political rivalry—Defence witness had stated that the accused was apprehended by the officials of Anti Narcotics Force, while the other defence witness had stated that some Army Officials arrested the accused—Defence witnesses had contradicted each other on the point of arrest of accused, which led to the inference that in fact none of the defence witnesses was present at the relevant place—Circumstances established that prosecution had succeeded to bring the guilt of accused at home and accused had failed to point out any non-reading of the evidence or any material illegality or serious infirmity committed by the Trial Court while passing impugned judgment—Appeal was dismissed 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  36   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ASGHAR ALI VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Recovery of twenty Kilogram Charas—Bail, refusal of—Discretion of Court—Scope—Huge quantity of narcotic was recovered from the accused—Petitioner contended that recovery was not witnessed by persons from public—Validity—No enmity, ill-will or grudge had been alleged against the prosecution witnesses, rather sufficient material had been brought by the prosecution on record including positive report of Chemical Examiner of narcotic substance—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Activities in which the petitioner was involved gave the country bad name in the international community of nations—Record showed that the evidence of the complainant/ Investigating Officer had been adduced and trial would be concluded in near future—Larger interest of the public and State demanded that in case of huge recovery of narcotics, the discretion under S.497, Cr.P.C. was not to be exercised liberally—Generalizations in matters which rested in discretion and an attempt to discover formula of universal application when facts were bound to differ from case to case frustrate the very purpose of conferring discretion—No two cases were alike in facts , therefore, Court was to be allowed a little free play in the joints if the conferment of discretion was to be meaningful—Such discretion, however, must be permitted to remain in the domain of discretion, to be exercised objectively and open to correction by the Higher Courts—Offence, in the present case, was heinous in nature—Court had to observe tentative assessment and deeper appreciation of evidence was not required at bail stage—Bail was refused to the petitioner, 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  146   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD SALEH VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Police officials as sole recovery witnesses—Competence—Principles—Prosecution case was that on spy information, police party signalled to stop the vehicle of accused and on search, fifty packets of charas, each packet weighing 1-kilogram total 50-kilograms, were recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by accused—Ten grams were separated from each packet for chemical analysis—Record showed that fifty samples separately sealed were received in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on the following day of the incident and report of all the fifty samples was positive—Complainant had deposed that on receipt of information regarding transportation of charas by the accused persons, accused was driving the car—Co-accused was also seated on the front seat of the car—Ocular testimony of the complainant was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but he stuck to his stance regarding arrest of accused persons and recovery of charas from the secret cavities of the car—Mashir/witness had testified to the effect that recovery of charas was made in his presence—Case property including the car were produced before the court—Presence of the accused persons in vehicle wherein the subject contraband charas was being transported by keeping it in the secret cavities was fully established—In the present, case all the witnesses were police witnesses, who were as good as private persons—Statements of the prosecution witnesses, who were Police Officials, were sufficient to prove the recovery of the contraband charas—No enmity, ill will or personal grudge to falsely involve the accused persons in the commission of the offence was proved—Association of private persons as witnesses of recovery was not necessary in the case as the application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. had been specifically excluded in the narcotics cases by virtue of S. 25 of the Act—Circumstances established that the testimony of prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution was inspiring confidence—No material discrepancies or contradictions in the statements of witnesses were found rather they were consistent to each other on all the material aspects of the case—Appeal was dismissed accordingly. [Paras. 12, 15 & 16 of the judgment]

2019  PCrLJN  99   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL RASHEED VS State

Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possession of narcotic substances— Appreciation of evidence— Prosecution case was that 420-kilograms of charas and 14-kilograms of opium were recovered from the tractor-trolley driven by accused—Record showed that the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, examined four witnesses—Said witnesses had implicated the accused to have been apprehended on/at day, time and place as mentioned in the FIR being in possession of charas and opium—Evidence of said witnesses in respect of arrest and recovery of charas was consistent and confidence inspiring—No material contradictions appeared in the deposition of witnesses to render the prosecution case doubtful—Admittedly, none of the prosecution witnesses had any enmity with the accused—Defence had objected that no private person was associated as mashir, but S. 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 specifically excluded the application of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Case property was sent to Chemical Examiner on the third day of the alleged recovery without any inordinate delay and it was not the case of the accused that the case property was tampered with while lying in the Malkhana—Once the prosecution, prima facie, established its case then under S. 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 burden would be shifted upon the accused to prove the contrary—In the present case, the accused had failed to do so—Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond any shadow of doubt—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2019  PCrLJN  62   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL REHMAN VS State

Ss. 9(b) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possession of narcotic drugs; search to be made in presence of witnesses; delay in dispatch of narcotic drugs for chemical examination—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Appellant was charged for possession of narcotic drug—Complainant and Investigating Officer the same person (Police Official)—Effect—Alleged place of incident was a busy area but no effort was made to pick up an independent person of the locality to witness the arrest and recovery proceedings—Requirement of independent witnesses/mashirs alone was not fatal to the prosecution case; however, where the police had advance spy information that offence was being committed some effort had be made by the police to bring independent witnesses along with them to bolster their case—Complainant and Investigating Officer was the same person and although this was not unlawful but as a matter of propriety and transparency it was preferable if the investigating officer was not the complainant—Alleged narcotic drug was recovered from accused on 15.07.2016, but was sent for chemical examination on 18.07.2016—Little evidence was available on record to show that narcotic drug was kept in safe custody from the time of its recovery until it was received by the chemical examiner—No entry with regard to deposit of narcotic drug in malkhana was produced—Person incharge of malkhana was not examined to prove the safe custody of narcotic drug—Prosecution having failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant, while extending benefit of doubt, appeal was allowed.

2019  PCrLJN  29   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD MURAD VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Police officials as sole recovery witnesses—Competence—Principles—Prosecution  case  was  that  120  slabs of charas, each slab weighing 1-kilogram, total 120-kilograms, were recovered from the secret cavities of truck, driven by accused—250-grams taken out from each slab were sealed in 120 packets at the spot for samples while remaining charas was sealed separately—Record revealed that the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused examined two witnesses and also produced memo of arrest and recovery, extracts of entries of departure and arrival and report of Chemical Examiner—Testimony of both the witnesses was in line with each other—Recovery of 120-kilograms of charas from the secret cavities of the truck used for transportation of the recovered narcotics substance, which was being driven by the accused, had been proved as there were no material contradictions or any other material discrepancy in the prosecution—Said witnesses were competent witnesses like any other independent witnesses and their evidence could not be discarded merely for the reason that they were the Police Officials—Testimony of the said witnesses had been corroborated by the positive report of the Chemical Analyst to whom the entire recovered narcotic substance was promptly sent, which was received by him on the following day—Stance of accused that the police had falsely involved him in the case by planting the recovery of charas from him was untenable as no justification existed on the record to falsely involve the accused in the case involving such huge quantity of narcotic substance—Accused had not produced any evidence in support of his defence plea—In the present case, no animosity or rancour of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses against the accused had been alleged—Circumstances established that prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of any doubt—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2019  MLD  1655   Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

State VS MUHAMMAD AKRAM

1997. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Search to be made in presence of witnesses—Provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C. were not applicable in narcotics cases by virtue of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2019  MLD  1655   Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

State VS MUHAMMAD AKRAM

Ss. 497(5) & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Bail, cancellation of—Possession of narcotics—Search to be made in presence of witnesses—Applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Scope—Anti-Narcotic Force recovered 9500 grams of heroin concealed inside the carpets kept in the godown/basement of a hotel—Heroin was recovered on the pointation of accused—Trial Court granted bail to accused—Validity—Offence under S. 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.—Trial Court while granting bail had observed that Anti-Narcotics Force officials did not record the statements of the employees of the hotel, which was the best evidence available to the prosecution—High Court held that provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C. did not apply where recovery was not made in pursuance of search of a house but was made elsewhere, for instance on the highways or on the road side or public places like railway station, bus stand, the search of baggage at airport or hotel, etc.—Accused remained in jail for a period of only one and half months whereas he was involved in a heinous crime which entailed capital punishment—Trial Court had wrongly touched the merits of the case—Reasonable grounds existed for believing that accused was prima facie involved in the case which was heinous in nature—Trial Court was not justified in granting bail to the accused—High Court recalled the bail granting order, in circumstances.

2018  MLD  954   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MIR WAIZ VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Scope—Defence had contended that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Validity—Application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded in such cases in view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2018  PCrLJN  145   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ZAIB KHAN VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic substance weighing 3020 grams—Bail, refusal of—Categorization of sentence; quantity or nature of contraband—Scope—Accused was allegedly found with Charas in his personal possession—Accused contended that nature and quantity of contraband and punishment which was likely to be imposed was to be kept in mind while deciding bail petition—Section 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 revealed that sentence was prescribed with reference to quantity of the recovered narcotic substance and not the kind or nature of the recovered substance—Contention of accused that no witness from public was associated though alleged recovery was effected from public place was based on misconception—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances, Act 1997 had excluded applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Categorization of sentence or any guess-work or speculative exercise was prohibited at bail stage in such cases—Investigation of the case was complete and trial was likely to commence—Prima facie, accused was connected with the alleged crime—Bail was refused accordingly.

2018  YLR  2243   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KHALIL UR REHMAN alias HEERA VS State

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

2018  YLR  700   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NEELAM BIBI VS State

Ss. 9(c), 25 & 51—Recovery of narcotic substance—Bail, refusal of—Female accused—Police witnesses—Charas weighing 1600 grams was recovered from shoulder bag of accused lady—Validity—Mere non-associating witnesses from public was not sufficient to vitiate search and recovery proceedings—Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been specifically ousted to recovery proceedings under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Alleged recovery was witnessed by police officials who fully corroborated the same in terms of their statements recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C.—Only tentative assessment was to be made and deeper appreciation was not warranted/ permissible at bail stage—Sufficient material was available on record to connect accused with alleged crime and provisions of S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were attracted—Accused lady did not deserve any leniency as no such distinction was provided under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and being female she could not claim any immunity on the basis of gender—Bail was refused in circumstances.

2018  YLR  2031   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

WAJAHAT ALI ZAIDI VS State

Ss. 497, 537 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 21 & 25 — Possession of narcotic weighing 2250 grams— Bail, refusal of— More than two kilograms of Charas was allegedly recovered from the accused—Punishment provided under clause (c) of S.9 Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was either death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which might extend to fourteen years with fine which might upto one million rupees and the same fell under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Section 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act , 1997 dealt with power of police officer to enter, search and seize without warrant by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of police or equivalent authorized in such behalf by the government—Investigation by an unauthorized Officer was an irregularily careable under S.537, Cr.P.C.—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in such cases—Bail, in circumstances, was refused to the accused.

2018  PCrLJ  1015   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL REHMAN alias JUMAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Police officials as sole recovery witnesses—Competence—Principles—Prosecution case was that 15-kilograms opium was recovered from the bag of accused—Prosecution witnesses were police officials—Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Validity—In view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases had been excluded and non-inclusion of any private person was not a serious defect to vitiate the conviction of accused—Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

2018  PCrLJ  227   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD LAIQ alias SUHNO VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 4—Possession of narcotic drugs—Bail, refusal of—Three kilograms of charas (narcotic) was allegedly recovered from the accused—Punishment provided under clause (c) of S. 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was either death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which might extend to fourteen years with fine which might upto one million rupees—Entire charas was sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis and his report was in positive—Investigation was conducted by officer of local police against whom no allegation of enmity was levelled—Association of any private witness was not the requirement of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in view of S. 25 of the said Act which had excluded applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Non-mentioning of number of slabs of narcotic substance in FIR and memo of recovery was not fatal to prosecution case when number of packets were mentioned—Delay of a few days in sending case property to Chemical Analyzer was of no consequence for the reasons that R. 4 of Control of Narcotic Substance (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 which prescribed seventy two hours for sending contraband articles to Chemical Analyzer was directory and not mandatory—Sentencing policy was not applicable at bail stage—Sufficient material was available on record to connect accused with commission of alleged offence—Bail was refused accordingly.

2018  MLD  1971   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

REHMAN SHER VS State

Ss. 6, 9(c), 25 & 29—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Twenty kilograms of charas was recovered from the diggi of taxi, which was in full control of accused being its driver—Quantity of narcotic exceeding ten Kilograms, case fell under Cl.(c) of S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for which death penalty or imprisonment for life had been provided—Record of taxi in question had shown that registration number affixed on the taxi was false one which had been allotted to a truck—Case of accused fell within four corners of S.6 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—No enmity, ill-will or grudge had been alleged against prosecution witnesses—Sufficient material had been brought by the prosecution on the record, including report of Chemical Examiner relating to positive report of narcotic substance—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Alleged recovery was witnessed by the Excise Officials and accused had failed to bring anything on record that he had falsely been roped in the offence because of any rivalry with the official witnesses—Person who was on driving seat of the vehicle, would be held responsible for transportation of narcotic having knowledge of the same—Evidence led by the prosecution, was in line with the case with no material variation or lapses—Memo of recovery and the FIR, stood fully corroborated and proved to the satisfaction of the Trial Court—No defence evidence at all had been adduced—Prosecution having successfully proved its case against accused, Trial Court had rightly convicted him.

2018  MLD  1322   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL SATTAR VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 25—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Bail, refusal of—Accused was arrested at the spot and huge quantity of charas (3000 grams) was recovered from his possession, which being costly, could not be foisted—Report of Chemical Examiner revealed that recovered property was charas—Accused, had failed to show enmity with the Police or any reason for his false implication in the case—Witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., had fully supported the version of FIR—Offence for which accused had been charged fell within restrictive clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.—Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. in such cases had been excluded by S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—No case for exercise of discretion in favour of accused having been made out, bail application being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

2018  MLD  794   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

LUTUF ULLAH VS State

S.103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.25—Recovery of narcotic substance by police officials—Effect—Recovery was duly witnessed by the police officials who were as good witnesses as any other person and had no reason to falsely implicate the accused in cases of like nature—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C.

2018  MLD  794   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

LUTUF ULLAH VS State

Ss.497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 25 & 51—Possession of Narcotic Substance weighing 3 K.G—Bail, refusal of—Rule of consistency—Applicability—Scope—Accused persons were allegedly found seated in car with narcotic substance hidden beneath the front seat of the car—Contention of accused that co-accused was allowed bail was beside the mark as accused was arrested red-handed with possession of narcotic—Recovery was duly witnessed by the police officials who were as good witnesses as any other person and who had no reason to falsely implicate the accused—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Case of the accused was hit by the prohibition contained in S. 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997 , therefore , no case of further inquiry was made out—Rule of consistency was not applicable as accused had failed to produce any material to suggest that he was falsely implicated in the case—Mere statement of accused that he had been implicated by the Anti-narcotic Force for non-fulfilling of their illegal demand was not sufficient—Bail was refused accordingly.

2018  YLRN  240   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

REHMATULLAH VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Both the accused persons, were responsible for transportation of huge quantity of charas having knowledge of the same in their vehicle—Nowhere it was mentioned or suggested by both the accused that vehicle in question, was either hired by someone else or loaded by the labourers and that they had no knowledge about the availability of narcotic substance in it—Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. in the narcotic cases had been excluded and non-inclusion of any private witness was not a serious defect to vitiate the conviction—Excise Officials, were competent and their evidence could not be discarded only for the reasons that they were Excise Officials—Said officials had furnished straight forward and confidence inspiring evidence and there was nothing on record to show that they had deposed against the accused persons maliciously or out of any animus—No proof of enmity with the complainant and the prosecution witnesses, having been brought on record, in absence thereof, competence of prosecution witnesses being officials, was rightly believed—Chemical Examiner’s report regarding charas, was sufficient to prove that the substance recovered from accused persons could be used to cause intoxication—All witnesses had deposed in line to support the prosecution case and despite cross-examination at length, defence had failed to make any dent in the prosecution case or to extract any material contradictions fatal to prosecution case—Prosecution had succeeded to prove the guilt of accused persons and accused persons, had failed to point out any material illegality or infirmity committed by the Trial Court—Impugned judgment, did not call for any interference—Appeal was dismissed being devoid of merits.

2018  YLRN  123   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Dil MURAD VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic drugs—Bail, refusal of—Section 25, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 expressly excluded the provision of S.103, Cr.P.C. in cases falling within the ambit of said Act—Questions of delay in sending narcotics and as to whether the same were not tampered with would be determined at trial—Police Officer was not prohibited under the law to be complainant if he was a witness to the commission of offence and also to be an Investigating Officer, so long it did not in any way prejudiced the accused person—Entire seizure of narcotic was sent to chemical examiner who, in his report had mentioned that a sample from each piece was tested which was tested positive to be charas (narcotic)—No case for admitting the accused to bail had been made out—Bail was refused accordingly.

2018  PCrLJN  228   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SULTAN ROOM BADSHAH URF BACHA VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic drugs—Bail, refusal of—Section 25, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 expressly excluded applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases—Non-existence of criminal record of accused could not be made sole basis for grant of bail—Ground that S. 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was not attracted as police did not apprehend any purchaser of narcotics was misconceived as said section was also applicable to mere possession of narcotics—Prima facie, accused was apprehended red-handed in possession of narcotics—Bail was refused accordingly.

2018  PCrLJN  171   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL MAJEED VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of over four kilograms of narcotic substance—Bail, refusal of—Accused was nominated in the FIR with specific role and was arrested at the spot and contraband narcotic had been recovered from his exclusive possession—Held, offences punishable under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 were by their nature heinous and considered to be the crime against the society at large—Deeper appreciation of the evidence was not permissible, hence the newspaper clippings, filed along with the bail application could not be considered at bail stage—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 stipulated that non-citing of public witness was not fatal to the prosecution case as S. 103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded from its application in the cases of narcotic substances—Bail was refused, in circumstances.

2017  PCrLJ  409   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

MUHAMMAD HASHIM VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Contraband was allegedly recovered from two bags found beneath the seats occupied by the accused persons—No private witness was associated in the recovery proceedings despite the fact that many passengers were travelling in the said bus at that time—Investigating Officer did not call any passenger, driver or cleaner to attest the arrest and recovery proceedings, which was violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Fact remained that S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excluded the applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases, but great care and caution was to be taken for association of a private witnesses if available at the time of arrest and recovery—Circumstances of the case had created serious doubt in the case of prosecution, benefit of which resolved in favour of accused—Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court against accused persons were set aside in circumstances.

2017  MLD  288   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

SHAHID DADA VS State

Ss.9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Possession of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Scope—Contraband was allegedly recovered from a populated area of the locality—No private witness was associated in the recovery proceedings, which was violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Fact remained that S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excluded the applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases, but there should be some plausible explanation on the record that attempts were made to associate any independent witness from the locality—Record had shown that no such efforts/attempts were made by the Investigating Officer—Accused had pleaded his false implication and also denied his arrest from the place of occurrence—Association of an independent witness was necessary to attest the recovery proceedings—Circumstances of the case had created serious doubt in the case of prosecution, benefit of which resolved in favour of accused—Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentences recorded by trial court against accused were set-aside in circumstances.

2017  YLR  524   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

TAHIR MAHMOOD VS The STATE/ANTI NARCOTICS FORCE

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were not of great importance as statements of said witnesses were recorded in the court after about 4 years of the registration of the case—With the afflux of time, it was quite natural that some minor contradictions could occur in the evidence of the witnesses—All the prosecution witnesses remained firm on the material points and they had successfully discharged the initial burden of proving the recovery—When no prejudice was caused to accused, then functioning of complainant in his dual capacity as complainant as well as Investigating Officer, was neither illegal nor unlawful—Case property having been produced before the Trial Court, non-production of car in question, could not be termed as fatal to the prosecution case, as recovery was not effected from any of the secret compartments or cavities of the said car, rather the heroin was recovered from the bags, which were lying in the rear seat—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being a special law, having clearly precluded the applicability of S.103 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, non-association of public witness during the recovery proceedings, was of no consequence—Accused persons could not furnish any plausible explanation for their false implication in the case—Plea of alibi taken by accused, was not supported by any independent evidence—Prosecution, had discharged the onus of proof by leading cogent and convincing evidence, but accused had failed to the contrary—High Court observed that approach of the court, while dealing with the case of narcotics, should always be dynamic, and court was to overlook technicality in the larger interest of the country and public at large; court had to consider the entire material on record as a whole and, if it was convinced that the case was proved, conviction should be recorded—Prosecution having successfully proved the charge against accused person by leading sufficient and cogent evidence, Trial Court had rightly appreciated the same while recording the conviction of accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused persons, were first offenders and having no antecedents of any criminal case to their score, death penalty being harsh punishment was converted into life imprisonment with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., in circumstances.

2017  PCrLJN  214   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NOOR IBRAR VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25— Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Accused was apprehended by the Police party at the spot, carrying a bag containing 19 packets—Out of those 19 packets 15 packets contained garda charas weighing 15 Kg, 2 packet containing charas weighing 2 Kg, and other 2 packets contained 2 Kg opium—Complainant and witness of recovery were reliable witnesses—All the prosecution witnesses had made consistent statements before the Trial Court—No glaring contradiction was pointed out in their evidence, which could create any doubt in the prosecution story; so as to extend its benefit in favour of accused—Accused had remained unable to point out any background of animosity between him and Police Officials to justify his false implication in the case—Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Evidence of Police Officials, was worthy of credence as that of any other witness and conviction could not be set aside on that score alone—Judgment of the Trial Court to the extent of accused on the charge of offence under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not call for any interference—Quantum of sentence awarded to accused appeared to be unjustified, as 2 packets of charas consisted of many pieces, but the prosecution case was silent about the exact number of pieces of charas recovered from said 2 packets—Testimony of prosecution witnesses, did not reveal that complainant segregated a sample from each of the packets/pieces for chemical analysis, which had created a pitfall in the prosecution case—Besides one and half packet of garda charas weighing 1500 grams, one packet of opium weighing 1000 grams and 200 grams charas, rest of the material recovered, would be rejected as mere junk—Accused, could be held responsible for having said quantity of narcotics—Maintaining conviction of accused, his sentence of imprisonment for life, was reduced to R.I. for six years—Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., was also extended to accused, in circumstances.

2017  PCrLJ  1399   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NAZAR MUHAMMAD VS State

1. 25—-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Mode of making search and arrest—Non-association of public/private person as mashir of recovery and arrest—Effect—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 has although excluded the provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C., but the same simultaneously places heavy responsibility upon the prosecution to adduce solid evidence to maintain the transparency of the recovery which can eliminate all possibilities of false implication of any innocent person—Recovery effected from the accused neither becomes doubtful nor loses its evidentiary value merely on the ground that the prosecution witnesses are the police officials and no public person has been associated as mashir.

2017  PCrLJ  1399   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NAZAR MUHAMMAD VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 121—Possession, import or export, trafficking or financing of trafficking of narcotic drugs—Appreciation of evidence—Mode of making search and arrest—Burden of proving that case of accused fell within exceptions—Association of public/private witnesses under S. 103, Cr.P.C., requirement as to—Applicability—Statement of police witnesses—Evidentiary value—Complainant and Investigating Officer being the same person—Effect—Prosecution’s prerogative as to number of its witnesses to be examined—Delay caused in completion of formalities—Effect—Minor contradictions/improvements—Effect—Prosecution case was based on the evidence of the complainant/Excise Inspector and mashir/Excise Constable supported by the Chemical Analyzer’s report—Both said witnesses had narrated the similar facts of the case, including snap checking, arrest of the accused and recovery of 120 kg Charas from the secret cavities of the truck wrapped in 120 packets weighting 1 kg each—Prosecution witnesses had deposed the details of the incident in the same line and fully supported the averments of the FIR and mashirnama of arrest and recovery as well as corroborated the evidence of each other—Defendant had failed to shatter the authenticity of the prosecution evidence during the cross-examination—Provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C. for association of two public persons, was not applicable in cases of recovery of narcotics from a moving vehicle on the Highways—Police witnesses were as good and respectable as other public witnesses and their statements could not be discarded merely for the reason they were the police employees—Accused had failed to point out any kind of animosity or ulterior motives on part of the complainant regarding his false involvement in present case—Accused raised the objection that the police had released the real culprit, but he had not moved any application before the higher authorities by disclosing the name of the actual culprit nor made any complaint for transfer of the investigation to any other Investigating Officer nor any such application had been moved to the Trial Court; therefore, said plea could not have been considered in view of Art. 121 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Complainant had taken separate representative samples from the recovered 129 packets of narcotics substance which was corroborated by the Chemical Analyzer’s report, which reflected the 120 sealed paper packets weighing 100 grams each, had been received for chemical examination and said substance had been declared as Charas—Complainant being a police officer was competent to investigate the case if he was witness of offence, and such recovery could not have been defeated merely on the ground that the complainant and the Investigating Officer was the same police officer, if no mala fide was established against the complainant—Prosecution had the prerogative to pick and choose any witness to be examined or not during the trial, and due to non-examination of any witness, no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution—Complainant and the mashir examined by the prosecution had satisfactorily furnished explanation for the delay of four days in lodgment of the FIR, as they had consumed three and half hours in checking of 120 packets and completion of other formalities; thus, the delay would not be fatal to the recovery of the narcotics—Minor contradictions or improvements would not be fatal to the prosecution case, and the same were to be over-looked—Prosecution had prima facie succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused—High Court, therefore, maintained the conviction/sentence—Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

2017  MLD  496   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

RASHEEDA alias RABIA VS State

1997. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Search and arrest—Mode—Search to be made in presence of witnesses—Application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. has been excluded in narcotic cases in view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2017  YLRN  99   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SIRAJ MUHAMMAD VS State

1997. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Mode of making search and arrest—Search to be made in presence of witnesses—Non-citing of public witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution case as S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded from its application in view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2017  PCrLJN  240   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

DUR MOHAMMAD alias DUROO VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9 (c), 21 & 25—Possession of narcotics—Bail, refusal of—Non-compliance of mandatory provisions of S. 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 could not be a ground for holding trial or conviction bad, as the directions in the said provision were not mandatory but were directory—Recovery of narcotics had not been made from any house or vessel but from the road side—Section 103, Cr. P. C could not be invoked in circumstances—Newspapers clippings could not be used either in favour of prosecution or defence unless author of the same was examined in a court as a witness—Offence under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did come within the meaning of prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.—Said offence was considered to be offence against the society at large—No case for grant of bail had been made out—Bail was refused in circumstances.

2017  YLR  1282   Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

MUHAMMAD SHARIEF VS STATE (ANF GILGIT)

1. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b)(c) & 25—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Accused was caught red-handed by Anti-Narcotic Force Officials—Contraband “charas” weighing 1030 grams, was recovered from personal search—Contention that provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C., were violated, did not hold the field—Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C., were not attracted in the case of personal search and had specifically been excluded by S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Quantity of “charas” recovered from accused marginally exceeded 1000 grams and it was a border line case of S.9(b) or S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which attracted provisions of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.—Bail was allowed to accused, in circumstances.

2017  MLD  303   Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

MALANG VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 25—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Bail, grant of—Despite prior information, no independent private persons were associated with recovery proceedings—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, no doubt, excluded the association of private witnesses, but, it did not confer unbridled right to public to make it an excuse for all cases, when there was chance that either accused would disappear from the scene; or the narcotics removed somewhere else—Conduct of Police, could not be given shelter; and non-association of independent witnesses, would favour accused, even for limited purpose of bail—Shop of accused (place of recovery) was situated in a thickly populated area; and local Police had no authority to search the shop without resorting to codal formalities provided under law to carry out the search, which had also not been followed, rather violated—Maximum punishment provided for the offence was only up to 7 years, which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Concession of bail was extended to accused, if there were no compelling circumstances to refuse the same—Accused, was neither habitual, nor a previous convict and there existed no special circumstance to refuse the concession of bail to him—Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

2016  YLR  2293   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ZAKIR ULLAH VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25— Possession of narcotics— Appreciation of evidence—Conscious knowledge of recovered stuff—Effect— Testimony of prosecution witnesses could not be shaken—Nothing was on record that accused was involved falsely or matter was prompted by his enemies to foist such a huge quantity of narcotics on him—Stuff recovered from the vehicle of accused was in fact charas—Accused was present at the driving seat of the vehicle which was in his possession and from its secret cavities huge quantity of narcotics was recovered—Recovered stuff was in the ownership of accused and he was having its conscious knowledge—Accused had failed to prove that he did not have conscious knowledge of recovered stuff—Police officials were as good witnesses as private persons unless any animosity was brought on record—Nothing was on record that accused had any ill will or grudge with the prosecution witnesses—Charge against accused had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt—Accused had been rightly convicted in circumstances— No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and sentence awarded to the accused—Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and held guilty the accused for the offence—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016  YLR  1618   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GHULAM NASAR KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Both the prosecution witnesses deposed in same line, and supported case regarding recovery of 85 kilograms of charas from the truck driven by accused—Evidence of both the witnesses was consistent on material points—Despite lengthy cross-examination by defence counsel, nothing could be achieved in favour of accused—Time of recovery being 5.00 a.m., at such early time, availability of the private persons at National Highway, could not be expected—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had excluded applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C., in narcotic cases—Non-association of the private mashir at the time of recovery of charas from the truck driven by accused, would neither cause any dent in the prosecution case, nor vitiate the proceedings—Accused being driver of the truck, was incharge of the same, was in knowledge of the contents and articles lying therein—Accused was responsible for transportation of charas, in circumstances—Acquittal of co-accused would not be helpful to accused, as said co-accused was neither owner, nor co-driver, and neither cleaner of the truck, but was only sitting with accused—Responsibility of said person was not at par with the accused—Complainant, had admitted that during investigation, co-accused was found innocent, and was released under S.169, Cr.P.C.—Prosecution having proved its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt, impugned judgment did not call for any interference and was maintained, in circumstances.

2016  YLR  359   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

PATHAN KHOKHAR VS State

Ss. 497(2) & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (Government Analysts) Rules 2001, Rr. 4 & 5—Possession of narcotic drugs, import and export of narcotic drugs, trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotic drugs—Non-associating of public witnesses while recovery—Effect—Statement of police official—Admissibility—Sending of narcotic substance for examination—Principles—False implication—Proof—Two thousand and fifty grams of charas was alleged to have been recovered from accused—Bail was declined by Trial Court—Applicant contended that allegedly recovered substance was sent for chemical examination with delay of nine days, which had made prosecution story doubtful, and that despite prior information complainant had failed to associate private person to act as Mashir at time of alleged recovery—Validity—Applicant was apprehended by complainant (official) during patrolling and Charas was recovered from his possession in presence of police officials—Provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C had been excluded by virtue of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Non-associating of public witnesses at time of recovery of narcotics was of no consequence—Police officials were good witnesses and their statement could not be discarded if any kind of enmity or ill-will was not brought on record—Rules 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, had imposed no bar on investigation officer from sending sample beyond seventy-two hours of seizure of narcotic substance—Said rules were directory in nature and not mandatory—Sending of sample beyond stipulated period in said rules, in absence of any allegation of tampering, would not frustrate entire case of prosecution—Complainant had failed to allege any kind of animosity against complainant for his false involvement nor was any complaint made to high-ups of police in that regard—Entire recovered substance was sent to Chemical Examiner and as per report, entire substance was charas—Applicant failed to make case for grant of bail—Bail petition was dismissed accordingly.

2016  PLD  378   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MOMIN KHAN VS State

1997. 25—-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—-Mode of making search and arrest—Search to be made in presence of witnesses—Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. has been excluded in narcotic cases in view of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2016  PCrLJ  1860   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GULSHAN SHAIKH VS State

1. 25—-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Search and arrest—Accused raised the objection that private person had not been associated as Mashir—In view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded in narcotics case—Evidence of the prosecution witness could not be discarded simply on the ground of violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C., which was not mandatory.

2016  PCrLJ  859   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

The STATE VS MUHAMMAD SABIR alias SABIR

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417 & 245(1)—Prohibition of possession, import and export, trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotic drugs—Appeal against acquittal—Appreciation of evidence—Mode of making search and arrest—Requirements—False implication—Benefit of doubt—Charas weighing 3000 grams was alleged to have been recovered from possession of the accused—Trial court, extending the benefit of doubt under S. 245(1), Cr.P.C., acquitted the accused—Prosecution witnesses, the complainant and Mashir, had given contradictory versions of the alleged incident and their testimony differed from each other on material point—Complainant had stated that the accused had been arrested at 4:00 pm in broad day light near a hospital, but he had not arranged or called any private person from the hospital to cite him as witness of arrest of the accused and recovery of the Charas from his possession—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 neither authorized the complainant/police officer to exclude independent witness nor did the same override the principle of producing the best available evidence—No reasons had been given for not associating the private independent witnesses, nor any effort appeared to have been made in that regard—Said circumstances had created doubt as to the conduct of fair and independent enquiry into the matter—False implication of the accused in the present case could not be ruled out, particularly when the complainant himself had registered the complaint and investigated the same, and both the prosecution witnesses/Mashirs were police officials—Prosecution had failed to produce any material evidence against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, and the accused had proved himself to be innocent—Appeal against acquittal was, dismissed.

2016  PCrLJ  574   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS State

Ss. 497(2) & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 25 & 51—Recovery of narcotic substance—Bail, refusal of—Charas weighing 43 kilograms was recovered from car in which accused was travelling—When case against accused was of further inquiry, the embargo contained in S. 497, Cr.P.C., barring bail to accused did not apply—On the same analogy bar contained in S. 51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was not applicable in a case of possession and recovery of narcotics if evidence in possession of prosecution prima facie did not make out a case punishable with death—Provision of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excluded application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. to searches made under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—In presence of a special law regarding search, general provisions would not prevail—Accused did not deny recovery of Charas from the car in possession of accused but pleaded that the same was recovered from the luggage of co-accused/passengers, such plea could only be determined at trial—Case of accused did not call for further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.—Bail application was dismissed in circumstances.

2016  PCrLJ  265   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

FAROOQ KHAN VS State

Ss. 6, 9(c) & 25—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—All three prosecution witnesses, who were Police Officials, had fully supported the prosecution case—Said witnesses, had been cross-examined at considerable length, but no discrepancy causing reasonable doubt in the veracity of prosecution case was found—Evidence of prosecution witnesses, over the recovery of narcotic substance from the house in question had not been shattered to such extent that conviction and sentence awarded to accused, could be declared illegal and set aside—Minor variations, though did occur in the evidence of witnesses, but no contradictions worth giving benefit of reasonable doubt to accused existed—Plea of false implication of accused at the instance of DSP, against whom accused had moved application for registration of FIRs, could not be given much weight, as said DSP was neither the witness, nor had conducted any investigation in the case—Said DSP had not played any part to contrive things against accused—Nothing concrete to suggest false implication of accused at the hands of said DSP, was found on record—SHO concerned had submitted criminal record of showing as many as 20 criminal cases of different kinds registered at various Police Stations against accused and his brothers—Objection of accused over the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station to register the case against accused, was also without any merits—Accused was aware of the nature, and exact time and date of incident reported against him—Stringent compliance of S.103, Cr.P.C., had been dispensed with in terms of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—People fearing for their life, did not come forward to give evidence against drug barons—Information disclosed by accused led to discovery of narcotic substance, was relevant as per scheme of Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and could be relied upon—Prosecution case was about recovery of 7 packets of charas, each having rods and each weighing 1250 grams—Out of those 7 packets, one packet individually consisting 100 rods, was separated, sealed and subsequently sent for examination to Chemical Expert, the report of which had come in positive—Regarding 6 remaining packets, the prosecution could not bring any evidence to establish the same to be narcotic substance punishable under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Prosecution was bound to take sample from every packet for examination to prove it to be narcotic substance—Accused, was liable for possessing 1250 grams of charas and 1000 grams of heroin—Conviction and sentence for possessing charas exceeding 1 Kilogram and upto 2 Kilograms was R.I. for 4 years, 6 months, and fine of Rs.20,000 in default S.I. for 6 months, and for possessing heroin exceeding 600 grams and upto 1000 grams, the sentence of R.I. for one year, 10 months and fine of Rs. 150,000 in default S.I. for 5 months—Same punishment for accused, would meet the ends of justice—Accused had served sentence of 6 years, 11 months and 14 days, and had earned remission of 2 years, 1 month and 19 days—Conviction and sentence of 10 years and fine of Rs.500,000 awarded to accused, was modified to the period already undergone by him, in circumstances.

2016  PCrLJ  47   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALI GUL alias MUJAHID VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Both, complainant and Mashir, who were Police Officials, had deposed that accused was apprehended by them, when he was coming in rickshaw along with three other persons and on checking, a plastic bag containing 17 packets of charas, was recovered—Chemical Examiner’s report proved that material was charas—Evidence of witnesses was unanimous on all aspects of the case; their evidence was consistent, coherent, and they had successfully faced the test of cross-examination, and nothing came on record to discredit their evidence—Accused was proved to have knowledge about charas allegedly found in the rickshaw—Prosecution through evidence, had successfully established that accused was apprehended on the spot; and from his rickshaw the plastic bag containing 17 K.Gs. of charas was recovered—Burden, in circumstances, shifted upon accused, but he failed to prove that he had no knowledge or consciously possessed the said article—Police witnesses were as good witnesses as other respectable public witnesses and their statements could not be discarded for the reason that they were Police employees, unless any animosity was shown or proved against them—No enmity was alleged against prosecution witnesses—Provision of S.103, Cr.P.C., was not applicable to a case of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, within the meaning of S.25 of the Act—Chemical Examiner’s report revealed that sealed bag was received which contained signatures of marginal witnesses—Alleged delay in sending material to Chemical Examiner was not fatal to the prosecution case, in circumstances—Accused had failed to rebut the prosecution version produced in shape of ocular testimony—Prosecution had succeeded to prove its case for recovery of 17 K.Gs. charas from accused—In absence of any illegality or infirmity, impugned judgment warranted no interference—Appeal filed by accused, was dismissed.

2016  PCrLJN  106   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHABIR AHMED BROHI VS State

Ss. 28 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Appreciation of evidence—Scope—Complainant and Investigating Officer were same, in the present case, which was violation of principles of natural justice—Section 103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable in cases of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 but when police officials were the only witnesses, evidence produced should be strictly examined so that conviction to an innocent person as a result of possible false implication could be ruled out which would be in accordance with principles of safe administration of justice in criminal matters—Appeal was allowed.

2015  MLD  499   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ABDUL QADEER VS State

Ss. 497, 103 & 537—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 21, 22, 23 & 25—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Bail, refusal of—Accused being driver of truck from which alleged contraband items were recovered, was incharge of the same, and it was under his control and possession and knowledge—Accused was in conscious possession of the contraband items and same could be attributed to him—No enmity of accused with the Anti-Narcotic Force was established—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, having excluded applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C., failure to associate any private witness in recovery proceedings, could not be termed as fatal to the prosecution case—Sections 21, 22 & 23 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 being directory in nature, non-compliance thereof, would not vitiate the trial, which was a mere irregularity and curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.—Provisions of S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, though had provided that no Officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police would be authorized to exercise powers under that Act but provision being directory in nature, would not vitiate the trial—Challan of the case having already been submitted before the Trial Court; any observation at that stage could prejudice the case of either side—Contention with regard to rule of consistency, was of no assistance to accused, for the sole reason that evidence against accused was not at par with that of co-accused, who had been admitted to bail—Accused could not be admitted to bail, in circumstances, his bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015  PLD  157   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAYYAR VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Recovery of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Conscious possession—Proof—Police witnesses—Chars weighing 15 kilograms was recovered from concealed cavity of vehicle driven by one of the accused—During investigation police arrested three accused two were travelling in the car while the third was alleged to be the person who had hired the vehicle—Trial Court convicted two accused and sentenced to imprisonment for life while the third who was travelling on passenger seat was acquitted as he was blind—Validity—Narcotics was recovered from conscious possession of accused driver of vehicle, which had been proved by prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt through cogent, reliable and convincing evidence—No mala fide or ill will of police officials existed against accused—Police witnesses in such like circumstances were as good witnesses as any other private person—Single dent in prosecution case was sufficient ground for acquittal of any accused—Standard of proof against accused facing charges under offence carrying capital punishment should have been above board, cogent and reliable—No person could be held responsible and convicted on uncorroborated circumstantial/shaky evidence—Prosecution did not succeed in bringing home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of the same was extended to accused who had hired the vehicle—High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded to driver of the vehicle while accused who alleged to have hired the vehicle was acquitted of the charge—Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2015  YLR  2163   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHAFQUAT MEHMOOD VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 4(2)—Possession of narcotic—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Non-association of private witnesses during arrest and recovery proceedings—Delay in sending samples for examination—Contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses—Effect—Accused was allegedly apprehended by police and found in possession of 2 kilograms of charas—Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—One of the prosecution witnesses stated that 10 to 15 people were gathered at the place of incident—Complainant in his examination-in-chief stated that no private persons were available at place of incident because of which he nominated police officials as mashirs, however complainant in his cross-examination stated that 20 to 25 persons were available at the time of incident—Such contradictions created dent in the prosecution case—Even if complainant’s version that 20 to 25 people were present was admitted, then question was as to why no private persons was picked as mashir of arrest and recovery—Although for cases under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 private witnesses were not necessary and police officials were good witnesses, but in the presence of private witnesses prosecution did not explain how the police assumed the role of mashirs—Record also did not show whether private person were asked to act as mashirs, rather it was admitted by one of the prosecution witnesses in his cross-examination that private persons, who had gathered at the spot, were not approached to act as mashirs—Delay of 8 days in sending samples to Chemical Examiner was not explained, despite the fact that under R.4(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 such exercise was to be completed within 72 hours of the recovery—Weight of narcotic sent for chemical examination did not tally with the weight disclosed in the deposition of prosecution witnesses—Benefit of doubt was extended in favour of accused and he was acquitted of the charge—Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2015  PCrLJ  1053   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUDASSIR IQBAL VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9(c) & 25—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Bail, refusal of—No animosity was alleged against complainant/Police Official to foist the alleged narcotics material upon accused—Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. in the narcotic cases, having been excluded by virtue of provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, non-inclusion of any private witness was not serious defect to make the ground of bail—Mens rea of accused was to be gathered from deep appreciation of evidence, which was not permitted at bail stage—Case of accused did not fall within the prohibited clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. in circumstances—On five occasions, case was adjourned, either on the request of accused side or due to absence of defence counsel, delay in trial of case, in circumstances was also attributed to accused, which disentitled him to bail, even on the ground of alleged delay in trial—Bail application of accused, being devoid of merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015  PCrLJ  300   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Syed RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH VS State

Ss.6, 9(c), 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C.— Scope— Both the prosecution witnesses had deposed in detail about the day of the incident, and their evidence was consistent with each other—Both witnesses were subjected to lengthy and exhaustive cross-examination, but defence was unable to shatter their evidence, which otherwise was confidence inspiring—Said witness deposed that accused persons were available at their homes; and a huge quantity of narcotics was recovered—Prosecution had discharged its onus as per S.29 of the Act and had successfully established the recovery of the contraband, the source of information, and was consistent about the departure from Police Station and arrival at the spot—Evidence against accused persons did not suffer from any contradiction—Accused persons had been unable to disprove the allegations levelled against them—Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Technicalities of procedural nature, were to be ignored as special law would prevail over the general law—Prosecution witnesses having fully implicated accused persons, there was no reason for false involvement and Trial Court was left with no option, but to pass conviction to accused persons—In absence of any illegality, impropriety, misreading or non-reading of evidence, conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons, was just and proper and same were maintained.

2015  MLD  383   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL AZIZ VS State

1. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Recovery proceedings in narcotic cases—-Non-association of private witnesses—Scope—Evidence of police officials—Scope—During recovery proceedings in narcotic cases it was not necessary that private persons should be associated—Evidence of a police official was as good as that of a private person, unless there existed enmity of police, with accused.

2014  MLD  467   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAMAWAT VS State

Ss. 9(c), 21, 22 & 25—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Search and arrest—Mode—Whole trial could not be vitiated for the simple reason that arrest, seizure and initial investigation in the shape of recovery memo was made by an incompetent Police Officer—Police Official was expected to immediately rush to the spot and apprehend offender/suspect of indulging in narcotics offences—In the present case, after arrest the complainant handed over the investigation to Sub-Inspector who was competent to complete the investigation and submit the challan—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had expressly excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C. to the cases registered under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Police Officials were as good witnesses as any other from the public—Normally persons from public, hesitate to be a witness of recovery or crime—No one from public came forward to associate, with the recovery of narcotics etc.—Police was generally reluctant to become witness in such like cases out of fear of reprisals from accused side—Police Officials were as good witnesses as other public witnesses, unless and until some enmity, ill-will or mala fide had been proved on the record by accused—Even otherwise search and arrest by Police Officer was only an irregularity; and not an illegality vitiating the whole trial—Report of Chemical Examiner was not questioned by the defence at the trial or in appeal—Said report was received in positive, which fully corroborated the evidence furnished by the complainant as well as the recovery witnesses—No enmity or ill-will had been established against the complainant as well as to the marginal witnesses of the recovery—Prosecution had proved the guilt of accused beyond any reasonable doubt; and had successfully discharged its burden through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence—Conviction of accused was based on correct application of law and proper evaluation of evidence—Conviction of accused was maintained, but as accused was first offender and having no record of past history; and remained in jail from the date of registration of case (17-6-2012) the sentence awarded to accused was reduced from 3 years to the period already undergone by him, and amount of fine was also reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000.

2014  YLR  1236   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GHULAM AKBAR VS State

Ss.9(b) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Evidence of the prosecution was lacking quality as well as reliability about the recovery of the narcotics from the possession of accused—Major contradictions were noticed within the evidence of two prosecution witnesses, the complainant, and Mashir, who were members of the Police party, and were professional Police personnel having experience of search and seizure and the requirements of law—Alleged narcotic was not weighed in presence of the complainant—As per complainant, out of 5 pieces, one weighing 10 grams was separated for sample and sealed, which according to contents of the chemical report was found as charas, but said 5 pieces at the time of recording of the evidence of the complainant were found as case property present in the court which had raised two fold questions; whether more than 5 pieces of charas were secured, and which one was sent for chemical analysis; and whether already separated quantity of 10 grams represented the remaining quantity as narcotic when no sample was drawn from those remaining 5 pieces—Private persons, despite presence, were not associated with search and recovery in gross violation of the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C.—No doubt S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was an exception to the general rule under extraordinary circumstances, but necessasity of employing private persons as Mashirs could not be overlooked, wherever same was possible—Unexplained delay of 22 days in sending sample to Chemical Examiner—Police had shown extra swiftness in completion of process in unusual way, from which it could be concluded that quality of unimpeachable evidence free from all reasonable doubts was lacking for recording of the judgment of the conviction and sentence—Prosecution evidence being full of doubt, accused was acquitted by extending him benefit of doubt and impugned judgment was set aside, in circumstances.

2014  YLR  757   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ZARBAD KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)—Possessing and trafficking narcotics, possessing unlicensed arms—Appreciation of evidence—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, having excluded the applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C., non-association of private mashirs at the time of recovery of narcotics would neither cause any dent in prosecution case, nor vitiate the conviction—Investigating Officer could be a complainant as well as a witness at the same time, without any adverse effect on the prosecution case—Police and Excise Officials, were as good witnesses as others; and their testimonies were also trustworthy—Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses, although were employees of Anti-Narcotic Force; but had no animosity or rancour against accused to plant such huge quantity of narcotic material upon him—Such was the exclusive domain of the prosecution to examine any witness or otherwise; and non-examination of any witness, would not vitiate the merits of the prosecution case—All prosecution witnesses supported prosecution case—Prosecution had been successful to bring home the guilt of accused to the hilt by placing ocular account, recovery of narcotic material and Chemical Examiner’s report—No reason was there to discard the testimony of the official witnesses—Counsel for accused persons, could not point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the Trial Court—Accused having failed to point out any error of law in impugned judgments, same were unexceptionable—Impugned judgments, not calling for any interferences, were maintained, in circumstances.

2014  YLR  188   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALI HASSAN alias HASAN VS State

1. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic —Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Non-association of private witnesses in spite of spy information—Punishment for the offence not falling within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.—Effect—Accused was allegedly found in possession of 1540 grams of charas—Although police witnesses were good witnesses as others but simultaneously it was the duty of police officer to make all efforts to join independent witnesses when there was such a possibility, and in case of failure to do the same, it should be justified with explanation—Maximum punishment for the offence, if proved, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.—Record did not show that accused remained involved in offences similar to the present one—All witnesses were police officials, therefore, there was no likelihood of tampering with prosecution evidence—Case against accused was one of further inquiry—Accused was granted bail accordingly.

2014  PCrLJ  1391   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Syed GULLAB SHAH VS State

Ss. 497 & 103— Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9 & 25—Possession of narcotic—Bail—Witnesses of recovery—Only police officials— Non-association of private witnesses—Effect—Mere fact that witnesses were police officials could not be considered as a good ground to grant bail or discard evidence of police unless some mala fides appeared on record on part of police officials.

2014  PCrLJ  662   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GUL ZAMAN VS State

Ss.9 (c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Recovery of narcotic substances—Appreciation of evidence—Police witnesses—Non-associating public witnesses—Charas weighing 62.830 kilograms was recovered from both the accused—Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life—Plea raised by accused was that evidence of police witnesses was not acceptable and no person from public was made recovery witness—Validity—Mere fact that witnesses belonged to police was no ground to discard their evidence—Police witnesses were as good and respectable witnesses as other public witnesses and their statement could not be discarded for the reason that they were police employees—By virtue of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, non-citing of public witnesses was not fatal to prosecution case as S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded from its application in cases of narcotics—Prosecution succeeded to prove its case for recovery of Chars and conclusion drawn and  reasons  given  by  Trial  Court  showed  fair  evaluation  of evidence—High Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in judgment warranting interference— Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2014  PCrLJ  482   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHAH NAWAZ alias SHANOO VS State

1. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 25— Possession of narcotic—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Narcotic cases—Animosity with police, relevance of—Accused was allegedly found in possession of 2220 grams of charas—Plea of accused that he was booked in the present case due to enmity with police since a relative of his had filed an application against concerned Station House Officer (SHO) and his subordinate staff under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C.—Validity—-Relative of accused had moved an application for registration of F.I.R. against concerned Station House Officer (SHO) and his subordinate staff, and in retaliation  four  F.I.Rs.  were  lodged  against  the  accused  and  his close  relatives— Factum  of  animosity  pleaded  by  a  party  with cogent  and  confidence  inspiring  evidence,  must  be  taken  into prime consideration by the court even if produced at bail stage, irrespective of the heinousness of the offence or recovery of considerable quantity of narcotic—Factum of animosity of police with the accused could not be rule out in the present case, which made the case one of further inquiry—Accused was released on bail accordingly.

2014  MLD  723   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUNEER VS State

Ss.103 & 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 (c) & 25—Recovery of narcotic substance—Bail, grant of—Complainant as investigating officer—Delay in trial—Private witness, non-association of—Charas weighing 3 kilograms was allegedly recovered from accused during day time in a busy street—Plea raised by accused was that no private person was associated with recovery proceedings, complainant of case himself investigated the case and accused had been in custody for the last 22 months—Validity—Investigating officer should not be biased and if complainant of crime was also investigating officer, then in such eventuality factor of bias could not be ruled out—Provisions of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excluded applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. but such exclusion did not authorize investigating officer of police or such other officer absolutely to exclude independent witnesses in all circumstances—Question of extension of benefit of doubt particularly at least in a case of further inquiry needed to be determined at bail stage, keeping in view the difference between “jail life” and “free life”—Accused was a young man of phosphoric age and since his arrest he had been behind the bar (for more than 22 months)—Case set up against accused was of great doubt and needed further inquiry—High Court did not allow to keep accused behind bars continuously amongst criminals and that too without any conviction in regular trial—Grant of bail in bailable offences was a right and not a favour and in non-bailable offences grant of bail though was not a right but a grace/concession—Bail was allowed in circumstances.

2014  PCrLJ  22   ISLAMABAD

MUHAMMAD IMRAN SHEIKH VS State

Ss. 9(c), 22, 25 & 36—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Stringent sentences having been provided under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, said Act had to be construed strictly; and relevant provisions of law dealing with the procedure, as well as furnishing proof, like report of Expert etc., were to be followed strictly in the interest of justice; otherwise, it would become impossible to hold that total commodity recovered from the possession of accused, was narcotics.

2013  YLR  1895   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MAQBALI KHAN VS State

S.25—Police witnesses—Scope—Police witnesses are always good witnesses as nobody dares to become witness against criminals to earn enmity for himself and for his family members.

2013  YLR  1244   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AMANULLAH VS State

S.25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Section 103, Cr.P.C., was not strictly applicable in narcotic case as envisaged in S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2013  YLR  140   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAFI ULLAH JAN VS State

1. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Non-association of private witnesses during recovery of narcotic—Validity—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the application of section 103, Cr.P.C.

2013  PCrLJ  1633   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD SHAKOOR VS State

1997. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Recovery proceedings—Scope—Operation and applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. in respect of all kinds of searches, purportedly done and effected under special law, had been excluded under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2013  PCrLJ  1525   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

FAISAL MUNIR VS The STATE through Latif Khan ASI Choki Mayar

1. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 21, 22 & 25—Police Order (22 of 2002), Art. 18(4)—Possession of narcotic, mode of making search and arrest—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector carrying out search, seizure, arrest and investigation proceedings—Non-availability of chemical examination report of samples—Effect—Accused was allegedly found in possession of 1750 grams of charas and 10 grams of heroin—Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), who was below the rank of Sub-Inspector, arrested the accused and allegedly recovered charas and heroin from his possession—Material investigation in the case in the  shape  of  seizure,  weighing  of  narcotic,  packing  and sealing of narcotic into a parcel, separation of some quantity of narcotic  for  analysis  through  Forensic  Science  Laboratory, had been carried out by the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI)—Entire action taken by the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) by way of registration of case and its investigation from its inception to the end was violative of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Police Order, 2002—Report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding samples of recovered narcotic  had  not  been  received  as  yet, therefore, case against accused required further probe—Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

2013  PCrLJ  1374   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

HAFTAY KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Recovery of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Recovery proceedings—Police witnesses—Charas weighing 20 kilogram was recovered from truck being driven by accused and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life—Plea raised by accused was that during recovery proceedings, no witness from public was associated and only police officials were witnesses—Validity—Non-compliance of S.103, Cr.P.C. could not be considered as strong ground for holding that trial of accused was bad in the eye of law—Police officials were competent witnesses and their statement could not be discarded merely for the reason that they belonged to police department—Accused was involved in the offence and conclusion drawn and reasons advanced by Trial Court showed fair evaluation of evidence which was in accordance with settled principles of criminal justice—High Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in judgment warranting interference, and sentence  was  maintained— Appeal  was  dismissed in circumstances.

2013  PCrLJ  915   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ALI MUHAMMAD VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Accused allegedly tried to smuggle 4947 kilograms of charas, which was hidden in the body of a truck— Accused was the driver of the truck in question—Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—All prosecution witnesses/Anti-Narcotics Force officials demonstrated complete unanimity on all aspects of the case and defence could not point out any material contradiction in their statements—No enmity, ill-will or grudge had been alleged against the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the accused—Huge quantity of charas weighing 4947 kilograms could not be thrust upon the accused without any tangible concrete enmity—Non-association of private witnesses did not matter since application of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Prosecution witnesses being members of the raiding party were natural witnesses and their testimony could not be discarded merely on the ground that they were employees of Anti-Narcotics Force—Report of Forensic Science Laboratory  stated  that  recovered  substance  was  charas— Accused failed  to  establish  that during  the  raid  he  was  not  driving  the truck—Prosecution had been able to prove that at the time of apprehension the truck was under the control of the accused and was sitting  on  the  driving seat—Prosecution had successfully brought home the guilt of the accused—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2013  PLD  586   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ASIF VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Possession of narcotic—Appreciation of evidence—Accused was allegedly apprehended on basis of prior information and 11 kilograms of chars was recovered from the back seat of the vehicle, wherein accused was sitting—Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused contended that according to F.I.R. recovery was effected from the back seat of the vehicle but according to the charge framed recovery was effected from the dashboard of the vehicle; that complainant (police official) had investigated the case himself; that samples were sent to chemical examiner after a delay, and that no private persons were engaged to witness the recovery proceedings—Validity—Defect in framing of charge was not of such nature that would vitiate the entire proceedings—Evidence adduced did not contain any material contradictions about the material aspects of the case—Since there was no objection from the accused that contraband was unsealed or tampered with or manipulated, therefore delay in sending the same for examination would not affect the result of analysis—Report of chemical examiner was in positive and defence had neither disputed nature of substance nor challenged the authenticity of the report of chemical analyst—Although no private person had been associated to witness recovery proceedings, but compliance with provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. was excluded in narcotics cases by virtue of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Prosecution had produced tangible and trust-worthy ocular and circumstantial evidence against the accused to connect him with the commission of the offence—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2013  YLR  2560   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AYAZ PATHAN VS State

1. 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  PCrLJ  1837   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Smuggling of narcotics—Non-association of private Mashir, effect—Appreciation of evidence—No infirmity was found in the evidence of the complainant—Prosecution witness had fully supported the prosecution case, and did not commit any error in connection with the arrest of accused persons—Recovery of narcotics was effected on the pointation of accused—Evidence of prosecution witnesses could not be shattered in lengthy cross-examination and they remained in line with each other—No infirmity or omission existed in the deposition of the witnesses  and  no  contradiction had been pin-pointed in their evidence—Though huge quantity of narcotic substance was involved in the case, but the complainant and prosecution witness did not differ or contradict each other in respect of the number of packets, weight of the narcotic, as well as the manner in which the same were recovered—Counsel for accused persons could not prove any enmity or ill-will against the prosecution witnesses to have deposed against accused persons falsely—Mashirnama was prepared at the time of recovery, which was verified by the prosecution witness to be true—Associating the private mashir was not necessary, as S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Ocular testimony had duly been corroborated by the mashirnama of arrest and recovery prepared at the spot in presence of Mashirs—Huge quantity of narcotic substance was involved in the case, and in view of strong evidence available against accused persons, they were rightly convicted and sentenced; and question of reduction of sentence, did not arise.

2013  PCrLJ  1709   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5—Possession of narcotic—Appreciation of evidence—Police on basis of spy information, signalled accused to stop at a police picket but he tried to speed away and escape—Accused was ultimately arrested and 18 kilograms of heroin was recovered from the vehicle he was driving—No contradictions existed regarding receipt of spy information, laying of police picket (nakabandi) on the spot, arrival of vehicle of accused, recovery of heroin weighing 18 kilograms and taking out of samples from each and every packet for analysis—Report of Chemical analysis was in positive—Since there was no objection that recovered substance was unsealed or tampered with or manipulated, therefore, delay in sending samples would not affect the result of their analysis—Rules 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 were advisory and not mandatory—Failure to follow said Rules did not render the search, seizure and arrest under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 an absolute nullity  and  non est—Regarding  contention  of  accused that samples had  not  been  taken  from  each  recovered  packet, it was not necessary to take samples from each packet as required evidence had been produced to connect the report with the case property—Association of private persons as witnesses was not necessary in the present case as S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded in narcotic cases by virtue of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused had failed to clarify as to what he was doing at the relevant time in the vehicle in question from which huge quantity of heroin was recovered and as to why he did not stop the vehicle at the picket when signalled by the police and tried to speed away—Prosecution had produced trustworthy  ocular  and  circumstantial evidence to connect accused with the commission of the offence—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2012  YLR  2007   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possessing and traffick­ing narcotic—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Counsel for accused did not object conviction of accused, but had prayed for reduction of his sentence—Accused was rightly convicted on the basis of the evidence of recovery of the charas from him—Report of the Chemical Examiner also supported the prosecution case—No infirmity was found in the impugned judgment to the extent of conviction of accused and no ground or justification was to warrant interference in the same—Conviction of accused was – maintained, in circum­stances—Prosecution evidence nowhere mentioned . that 45-Kgs charas was recovered from the accused—Trial Court had assumed that 45-Kgs charas was recovered from the accused mainly basing his statement recorded _ under 5.342, Cr. P. C. —Accused had also led defence evidence in that behalf—Some part of the statement of accused was not to be taken as true and the remaining otherwise–Statement of accused either be discarded as a whole or be accepted in toto-Trial Court was not justified in law while giving finding that 45-Kgs charas was recovered from the accused—In view of relatively lesser quantity of the narcotic substance i.e. 5-Kgs recovered from accused, his sentence was reduced from death sentence into imprisonment for seven years–Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to accused—Burden of fine as was ordained by the Trial Court, would remain intact.

2012  YLR  805   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

IBRAR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Smuggling of narcotics— Appreciation of evidence—Statements  of  prosecution  witnesses  had  no material discrepancies—Minor discrepancies and innocent admissions during cross-examination were natural due to a lapse of more than three years—Credibility of police witnesses or Excise Staff was as good and respectable as any other public witnesses and their statements could not be discarded owing to their being employees of the said departments—Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had excluded the applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases— Non-association of private witnesses with investigation, therefore, was no defect to vitiate conviction—Provisions of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of the said Act being directory in nature, their non-compliance would not make the trial bad in the eyes of law—Charas and opium had been recovered from the car in possession of accused, technicalities of any nature could be overlooked in the larger interest of the country, if the case otherwise stood proved—Chemical Examiner’s reports regarding charas and opium recovered from the accused were positive—Prosecution thus, had discharged its initial onus, whereas accused had failed to discharge their burden in terms of S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Prosecution evidence was consis-tent—Impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegality—Appeals were dis-missed in circumstances.

2012  YLR  2797   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD NAZEER VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic—Bail, refusal of—Implication on basis of police enmity and political reasons not proved—Non-association of private witnesses in narcotic cases—Scope—Accused and co-accused were allegedly arrested with 4.5 kgs and 5.5kgs of charas (narcotic) respectively—Contentions of accused and co-accused that they had been implicated in the case due to police enmity with their community and due to political reasons; that police had prior information of the incident but did not associate any private witness to act as mashir and therefore committed violation of S. 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and S.103, Cr.P.C—Validity—Accused and co-accused had failed to submit any F.I.R., judgment or documentary proof to establish that they had been involved in the present case due to enmity of the police with their community or due to political reasons—Accused and co-accused were arrested in broad-daylight and their names were mentioned in the F.I.R. and they failed to explain how such huge quantity of narcotic could be foisted upon them by the police—Section 103, Cr.P.C had been excluded by S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, because of which it was not necessary in narcotic cases to associate private persons in the recovery proceedings—Offences alleged fell within the prohibitory clauses of S.497, Cr.P.C—Bail applications of accused and co-accused were dismissed, in circumstances.

2012  YLR  2797   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD NAZEER VS State

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic—Bail—Evidence of police officials—Reliance—Scope—Evidence of police officials was as good as that of a private person unless there existed enmity with the police.

2012  YLR  1316   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BACHA MIR VS State

Ss. 6, 8, 9(c) & 25—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Plea of counsel for accused was that no private Mashir or passenger from the Bus in question was associated or made witness—Provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had clearly provided that for the purposes of search and arrest in the narcotic cases, the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable—Even otherwise, Police employees were the competent witnesses like any other independent witness; and their testimony could not be discarded merely on the ground that they were Police employees—Statements of prosecution witnesses remained constant on all material particulars, despite lengthy cross-examination to which they were subjected—Nothing came out from the defence witness which might help accused—Accused was driver of the bus in question, while co-accused was its cleaner and charas was also recovered from the secret cavities of the bus—No doubt existed regarding the conscious possession and knowledge of contraband in the case—According to prosecution story, 110 Kg slabs of one Kg, were recovered from the secret cavities, and each slab of one Kg, was separated from each bag for sending to the Chemical Examiner, which had shown that only six Kg charas was sent for chemical examination—Report of Chemical Examiner, though was positive, but according to description of articles contained in parcel, six printed plastic Pani Packets, each containing one Kg black brown colour slab wrapped in plastic Pani was sent—Undoubtedly only six slabs of charas of one Kg each out of 110 slabs were sent for chemical examination and it was not ascertained that recovery of remaining slabs were of charas or some other commodity—Conviction of accused did not call for any interference, but nothing was brought on record by the prosecution that accused were previously convicted or found previously involved in any narcotic cases—Life imprisonment to both the accused was reduced to 8 years, without any modification into quantum of fine.

2012  YLR  1251   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

PANDHI KHAN VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c) & 25—Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)—Possession of narcotic, possession of illegal weapons—Bail, refusal of—Report of chemical examiner was positive—Contention of accused that police officials tried to snatch his foreign made weapons and foisted upon him 2 kgs of narcotic, which was lying in the police station, was not believable—Accused had contended that he held licences for  the weapons recovered from him, but failed to mention that any such licence was shown by him to the police—Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances, 1997, had excluded the applicability of S.103,Cr.P.C, because of which evidence of police officials was as good as the evidence of any other independent witness—Reasonable grounds existed for believing that accused was connected with the commission of the offence, as a result of which his bail application was dismissed.

2012  PCrLJ  402   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE VS THE STATE/ANF PS HYDERABAD

Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 25 & 51—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Bail, refusal of—1100 grams of charas was recovered from one of co-accused, 500 grams each from other two co-accused, while two kilograms of charas was recovered from the accused—Case of co-accused being border line case, they were granted bail—Accused from whom two kilograms of charas was recovered, being not similarly placed, rule of consistency could not be applied to his case—Arrest of accused on the spot along with recovered charas, prima facie, suggested that he was involved with the commission of offence, for which the sentence prescribed under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was death or imprisonment for life—Accused, prima facie, was not entitled to bail—Offence of accused not only fell under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., but also attracted the bar contained in S.51(1) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Objection of counsel for accused regarding non-compliance of S.103, Cr.P.C. was misconceived as by virtue of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, non-citing of a private witness was not fatal to the prosecution case as S.103, Cr.P.C.  had  been  specifically  excluded  from  its  application,  in cases  of  narcotics—No  material  was  available  on  record  to  suggest  that  accused  was  facing  ailment,  which  could  not  be cured  in  the prison; or there was any danger to his life if such medical  treatment was not provided to him outside the prison—Counsel for the accused had argued that accused being T.B patient he could be enlarged on bail—No definite finding could be recorded on such aspect of the case, at bail stage—Accused having failed to make out a case for grant of bail, his bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012  MLD  1713   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL NAEEM VS State

1. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Exclusion of applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Scope—Though private persons are required to witness the recovery of narcotic substance as provided under S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, yet the place of recovery and the time of recovery have to be kept in view to prevent false implication of innocent people, looking to the general conduct of police.

2011  PCrLJ  1899   QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

KHALIQUE DAD alias JAN AGHA VS State

Ss. 9(c), 21 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Possessing contraband narcotics— Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution had successfully established the recovery of contraband material from the house of accused—Objection that the recovery had been made in violation of the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. as no search warrants had been taken in the matter, gave no help to accused—Under the provisions of S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, application of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded—Neglecting provisions of S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which were directory in nature and not mandatory, would not throw the entire proceedings of recovery out of consideration, particularly when none from the raiding party had been shown having any enmity against accused—No specific or significant contradiction was noticed in the statements of prosecution witnesses, which could discredit or disbelieve their evidence—Prosecution evidence was in consonance, corroboratory and had no defect at all—No dent had been caused to the evidence of prosecution witnesses from defence side—No misreading and non-reading of evidence was found in the case—No defect or lacuna having been noticed in the judgment of the court below, same could not be interfered with, in circumstances.

2011  YLR  134   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

BAKHTI JAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Possession of narcotics—Recovery proceedings—Prior information—Recovery of contraband was doubtful for the reason that recovery was not made in the presence of public witnesses—Though the applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded through S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but association of public witnesses was necessary when the proceedings were conducted on prior information.

2011  PCrLJ  277   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NASRULLAH VS State

1. 103-Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.25—Operation of S.103, Cr.P.C. was excluded to narcotic cases by virtue of S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 wherein recovery was made on highway, roadside or from a moving vehicle.

2011  PCrLJ  277   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NASRULLAH VS State

1. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Exclusion of application of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases—Scope—S. 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded operation of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases wherein recovery was made on highway, roadside or from a moving vehicle.

2011  PCrLJ  277   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NASRULLAH VS State

Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Possession of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Recovery of contraband and registration documents and number plates of the vehicle from accused corroborated the prosecution story—Accused failed to explain plausibly the purpose of his journey in public/government vehicle without . permission of the officer concerned—No reason for false implication through planting huge quantity of contraband was alleged or established—Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the operation of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases wherein recovery was made on highway, road side or from a moving vehicle—Rules 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 placed no bar on the Investigating Officer to send the samples beyond/after 72 hours of the seizure, receive the Forensic Science Laboratory report after 15 days and place the report so received before the Trial Court—Rules 4 & 5 being directory and not mandatory, could not control the substantive provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the same had to be applied in such a manner that would not frustrate the purpose of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Failure to follow Rr.4 & 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 would not render the search, seizure and arrest under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 an absolute nullity—In the absence of any allegation of tampering with the contraband, delay would not affect the result of analysis—Accused failed to rebut the presumption of possession of illicit articles under S.29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and could not point out any illegality or non-reading or misreading of evidence warranting interference of High, Court in appellate jurisdiction—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2011  YLR  268   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

DOST MUHAMMAD VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Possession of narcotics—Officials as recovery witnesses—Failure to return wrappers of samples—Ailment of accused—Reduction in sentence—Accused was arrested during raid and 58 kilograms of Chars in a packing of one kilogram each was recovered from his possession–Investigating officer took 10 grams from each packet as sample and sent the same for chemical examination—Accused was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment—Plea raised by accused was that no public witness was associated at the time of recovery and wrappers in which samples were packed were not returned by Chemical Examiner—Validity—Nobody was available at the spot at the time of arrest and recovery from accused—Investigating officer had rightly made Masheers from the members of raiding parties—Once it had been mentioned in Chemical Examiner’s report that samples were consumed during test, the wrappers containing samples, being empty, were not required to be sent back by Chemical Examiner—Presence of accused on motorcycle along with sack of 58 bags each containing one kilogram of Chars and apprehension by Anti Narcotic Force officials was not denied specifically by. accused—Accused, in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., had stated that Chars was not his property and had been foisted upon him by police—Prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and had successfully discharged its burden through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence—High Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by Trial Court warranting interference in appeal—Accused was diabetic which resulted in amputation of his right leg, therefore, keeping in view the ailment of accused High Court reduced quantum of sentence from life imprisonment to that of 20 years—Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2011  PCrLJ  1342   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

IQBAL SHAH VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possessing narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Examination of private persons was not the requirement of law in terms of S. 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Reluctance of general public to become witness in such cases was now a judicially recognized fact and no option was left but to consider the statements of official witnesses, for which there was no legal bar—Police officials were as good witnesses to be relied upon, if their testimony had remained unshattered during cross-examination— Recovery of “Charas” having not been disputed, delay in sending the samples to Chemical Examiner without any suggestion of tampering with the same per se, would not make the report of Chemical Examiner unreliable—Prosecution evidence with regard to the recovery of “Charas” from the accused inspired confidence and did not suffer from any legal infirmity, material contradictions or dishonest improvements—Prosecution  witnesses  had  no  enmity  with  the  accused  to  involve  them  in  a  false  case—No  mitigating  circumstance  was  available to reduce the sentence of accused—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2011  PCrLJ  398   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

INAYATULLAH VS State

1. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Exclusion of application of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Section 25 of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded the applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases.

2011  PCrLJ  398   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

INAYATULLAH VS State

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

2011  MLD  1890   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ASGHAR VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b) & 9(c) & 25—Bail—Ouster of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Effect—Though private persons are not required to witness the recovery of narcotic substances as provided under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, yet the place of recovery and the time of recovery have to be kept in view to prevent false implication of innocent people, looking to the general conduct of police.

2011  MLD  110   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN TAHIR VS State

1. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Exclusion of application of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excluded application of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases.

2011  MLD  110   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN TAHIR VS State

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

2011  PLD  62   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL ZAHIR alias ZAHIR SHAH VS State

S.25—Recovery of narcotics—Police witnesses—Scope—Police employees of Anti-Narcotics Force are also competent witnesses like any other and their testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are police employees.

2010  SCMR  27   SUPREME-COURT

ISMAEEL VS State

Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29(d)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Official witnesses—Recovery from vehicle—Proof of—Shifting of onus to prove—Chars weighing 39 kilograms and opium weighing 3 kilograms was recovered from inside four doors of the car which was being driven by accused—Trial Court convicted the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, which conviction and sentence was maintained by High Court—Validity—Mere fact that prosecution witnesses belonged to Anti-Narcotics Force, by itself could not be considered valid reason to discard their statements—Chars and opium recovered from four doors of the car which was being driven by accused coupled with the fact that only accused was present in the car, therefore, courts below were justified to give finding against accused regarding his guilt—In case of transportation or possession of narcotics, technicalities of procedural nature or otherwise should be overlooked in the larger interest of country, if the case stood otherwise proved—Approach of Court should be dynamic and pragmatic in approaching true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions while deciding such type of cases—Court should consider entire material as a whole and if it was convinced that the case was proved then conviction should be recorded notwithstanding procedural defects—Chemical Examiner’s reports regarding Chars and opium were sufficient to prove that substance recovered from accused was Chars which could be used to cause intoxication—Prosecution discharged its initial onus while proving that substance was recovered from him whereas accused failed to discharge his burden in terms of S.29 (d) of Control of Narcotic Substances. Act, 1997—Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court—Leave to appeal was refused.

2010  YLR  2283   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABDUL JANAN VS State

Ss.9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic–Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Parcel of recovered contraband Charas contained no seal-Non-fixing of any seal on the parcel had made the narcotic doubtful—Weight of the narcotic was also found to be doubtful—Some pieces of Charas were found in the parcel which were totally different from the remaining lot, and it could not be ascertained as to whether same were Charas or “Khal “—Condition of the parcel and its contents, had made the case of the prosecution very doubtful, in circumstances—Conductor and the driver of bus in question, who were very important witnesses should have been cited and examined as prosecution witnesses because their depositions might have been helpful to the prosecution, but they were not associated with the investigation process—Such omission had also created doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version—Narcotics were recovered from the conscious possession of accused, but said physical and conscious possession was not proved in the evidence of the prosecution—No ticket was recovered to show that accused was travelling in the same bus, such omission would ‘create doubt because accused had altogether denied travelling in the bus—Though S.103, Cr.P.C. was excluded through S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but it was to be complied with when there was a prior information—In the present case prior information being available, association of public independent witnesses with the recovery was necessary—Non-association of public witnesses with the recovery in spite of prior information was fatal to the prosecution case—Sample of contraband Charas was sent for chemical analysis with a delay of 27 days, which had gone against the case of the prosecution—Case against accused was full of doubts and contradictions—Prosecution had not been able to prove its case against accused and impugned judgment of the Trial Court was result of non-appraisal of material evidence brought on record—Impugned conviction and sentences awarded to accused by the Trial Court, were set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge and was set at liberty.

2010  MLD  773   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD NADEEM VS State

S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotics—Bail, grant of—“Charas” weighing four kilograms was allegedly recovered from the possession of accused—Accused was behind the bars for the last three years anti only two prosecution witnesses had so far been examined in the case by Trial Court—Conclusion of trial in the near future was not likely—Early decision of the case was right of accused—Accused was not responsible for delay in conclusion of the trial and he could not be kept in jail for an indefinite period—Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.

2010  YLR  844   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

RAHIB ALI VS State

1. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9 & 25—Possession of narcotic—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Only one K.G. of Charas in shape of pieces was allegedly recovered from accused, but neither number of pieces nor weight of each piece was given nor it was mentioned that from which piece of Charas ten grams was separated for chemical analysis—Accused could not be held responsible for joint recovery; as pleaded by prosecutor that on his information further 12 K. Gs. of Charas was recovered from the house of co-accused—Prosecution case was not that accused was relative of co-accused and it was not mentioned in the F.I.R that on whose information accused came to know about presence of Charas in the house of co-accused—Accused at the most, could be held responsible for quantity of one K.G. which was allegedly recovered from him and it fell under S.9 (b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. —Sample was not taken from each piece of Charas and ten grams of Charas fell under S.9(a) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which carried punishment of two years—Accused had made out a case of further inquiry–Accused was enlarged on bail, in circumstances.

2010  YLR  602   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MANZOOR VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic–Appreciation of evidence—Official wit­nesses were as good as any independent witness—Simply for the reason that they being official witnesses, their evidence against accused should not be believed and same should be discarded, was not a sufficient ground—If defence side wanted that the evidence of the official witnesses should be discarded, it had to establish that the prosecution witnesses were hostile towards accused and had reason to falsely implicate him—Nothing of the sort in that regard was available on the record to show that there was any reason for the official witnesses to falsely depose against accused—Under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. having been excluded, contention of counsel for accused regarding non-calling of the person from locality to witness the alleged recovery, did not carry any weight—Press clippings were neither relevant nor admissible in evidence, when accused had not examined the reporter of the newspaper who had given the report about the recovery of narcotics from the person other than accused—So far as examination of private person by accused in his defence was concerned, it was observed that the evidence of those defence witnesses was neither confidence inspiring nor convincing—Prosecution witnesses examined in the case had been consistent in their evidence regarding place, from where accused was arrested, about the time of arrest of accused and recovery of 20 kgs Charas effected from his possession—Both the witnesses of the  prosecution in their evidence had supported each other on material points; nothing was on record to justify that their evidence should not be relied upon—Prosecution, in circumstances, had succeeded to prove its case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt—Judgment of the Trial Court which was quite correct and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable, did not require any interference by the High Court.

2010  YLR  447   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL MANAN VS State

Ss.9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic—Appreciation of evidence—Witnesses were consistent on the material point and minor discrepancies pointed out were not sufficient to discredit the statements of said witnesses—No enmity or grudge was alleged against the complainant or the Prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate accused persons—Violation of S.103, Cr. P, C., carried no weight in view of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which had specifically ousted application of S.103, Cr. P. C. —Chemical Examination Report, was positive with regard to narcotics recovered from accused—Both the prosecution witnesses were consistent that accused persons claimed ownership of bag containing narcotics—Defence plea to the effect that the narcotics were produced from local market was vague—Prosecution had produced sufficient material to connect accused persons in the commission of crime—Sentence awarded to accused persons was proper—Impugned judgment not calling for interference, appeal stood dismissed.

2010  PCrLJ  381   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SARWAR KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Complainant, who was Excise Inspector, had deposed same fact as contained in the F.I.R.—Complainant deposed about the arrest of accused persons and recovery of Charas weighing 280 Kgs. from the secret cavity of the truck in question—In cross-examination nowhere arrest of the accused persons and recovery of huge quantity of Charas had been questioned or disproved, the testimony of said witness remained unshaken—Other prosecution witness, had also fully deposed on the same pattern as had been deposed by the complainant—No slight difference was available in cross-examination of both said prosecution witnesses; their evidence was in consonance with each other on material aspects of the case regarding arrest of accused persons and recovery of Charas—No material had been fished by the defence side to extend its benefit to accused persons—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, spoke about the evidence of the Police Officials which could be treated as good as the evidence of any independent witness could be–Evidence of Police Officials could not be discarded merely for the reasons that they were Police Officials—Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. had also been ousted from the proceedings of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Contention of accused that all the Mashirs being Police Officials their testimony could not be believed, was repelled, in circumstances—If the narcotic substance had been secured in bulk quantity from the possession of accused, it ,was not obligatory on the part of the prosecution to send the whole quantity of narcotics to the Chemical Examiner; and the sample from each huge bulk of narcotic substance could be sent to the Chemical Examiner and positive report of the Chemical Examiner could be treated affirmatively against the whole quantity of Charas—Recovery ,of 280 Kgs. Charas had been established by the prosecution from the possession of both accused persons and said recovery had not been disproved by accused persons by adducing any independent evidence—Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly convicted and sentenced’ accused persons—In absence of any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the Trial Court, appeals against said judgment, were dismissed, in circumstances.

2010  PCrLJ  292   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN VS State

S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 8, 9(c) & 25—Possession of narcotic—Bail, refusal of—All the prosecution witnesses had clearly stated during the investigation that accused was cleaner of the vehicle in which contraband narcotic was transported—Question as to associating the Police witnesses and non-associating the private witnesses, section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had imposed bar that S.103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable in narcotic cases—Record had connected accused with the commission of the alleged offence—Counsel of accused having failed to make out a case for grant of bail, his bail application was dismissed.

2009  SCMR  306   SUPREME-COURT

ABDUL RASHEED VS State

Ss. 25 & 9(b)—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Recovery witnesses, status of—Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has excluded the applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. to the cases under the said Act—Prosecution witnesses being members of the raiding party are natural witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are the employees of police force.

2009  PLD  39   SUPREME-COURT

TARIQ MEHMOOD VS THE STATE through Deputy Attorney-General, Peshawar

1. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Recovery—Section 25, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes the application of S.103, Cr.P.C.

2009  PLD  14   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Syed MEHMOOD SHAH VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Material prosecution witnesses, were unanimous on the point of time, place of occurrence, recovery of arms and ammunitions and seizure of narcotics from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by accused—Samples of contraband articles sent for chemical analysis were also found by the Chemical Examiner to be charas and opium—Planting of such a huge quantity of narcotics was next to impossible for the Police officials—Even otherwise it was not claimed by accused in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. that same was planted on him by the police officials—Case being of nakabandi/checking and the prosecution witnesses being members of the checking party, their presence at the spot was natural—Police officials being competent witnesses like any other independent witness, their evidence could not be discarded merely for the reason that they were the police employees—Contention of Defence Counsel regarding non-joining of private witness had no force because S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Testimony of prosecution witnesses had been corroborated by the report of Chemical Analyst which was positive—Delay of few days in sending the samples to Laboratory due to rush of work, was of no consequence, in view of the huge quantity of narcotics recovered from the secret cavities of vehicle in possession/in the charge of the accused—Objection regarding non-production/exhibition of case property was not tenable as case property was destroyed in accordance with law and samples obtained therefrom had been exhibited on record—Prosecution had successfully established the guilt of accused to the hilt by producing evidence and defence counsel had not been able to point out any error or illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court—However keeping in view the quantity of narcotics and old age of 65 years of accused and the fact that he was the driver of the vehicle in question, ends of justice would be met if death sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court was reduced to the imprisonment for life—Death sentence was converted to imprisonment for life maintaining conviction of accused.

2009  YLR  1724   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

JAN ALAM VS State

Ss. 25 & 9(c)—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Search and arrest, mode of—Exemption of S. 103, Cr.P.C.—Effect—Exclusion of S. 103, Cr.P.C. from being applicable to cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, may provide a legal technical support to the admissibility of the evidence of official witnesses, but it does not make them reliable—Legislation cannot make a man moral—Evidence of such official witnesses should always be examined keeping in view the fact that in present society having unfortunately the prevailing moral values, a subordinate official is seldom expected the tell the truth against the expressed or implied instructions of his superior.

2009  PLD  212   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

LAL MUHAMMAD alias HAJI LALOO VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Recovery of 160 kilograms of Charas—Chemical examination report–Police witnesses—Authorities recovered 160 kilograms of Charas on the pointation of accused and Trial Court convicted accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life—Plea raised by accused was that only 20 grams of Charas’ was taken into consideration by Chemical Examiner, therefore, case of accused fell under S.9(a) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused further raised the plea that no witness from public was associated in recovery proceedings—Validity—Heavy quantity of Charas secured at the instance of accused was not mandatorily required to be sent to Chemical Examiner—Only samples of contraband Charas and its positive report was sufficient to hold whole recovery as Charas—In lengthy cross-examination conducted on prosecution witnesses no material had been fished out to prove that prosecution witnesses possessed any animosity against accused to implead him falsely—Evidence of prosecution witnesses being police officials could not be excluded from consideration in view of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, ,1997, as that provision of law was completely different in nature from provisions of 5.103, Cr.P.C.—Accused failed to point out any material contradictions in testimony of prosecution witnesses so as to extend its benefit to him—Minor or trivial contradictions in testimony of prosecution witnesses were not sufficient to reflect on their bona fides, which discrepancies were bound to occur due to lapse of considerable time—Trial Court rightly apprised evidence brought on record before it and its judgment did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence available on record so as to interfere in it–High Court also declined to modify the sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2009  PCrLJ  112   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

UMERTIAZ KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Charas, in the present case was not concealed in any cavity of the bus, but it was in a bag which was carried and owned by accused persons—By virtue of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, S.103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable in narcotic cases registered under the said Act—Even otherwise the law-enforcing agencies had to keep certain information secret till the last hours relating to the recovery and conducting raid at a particular place; and if such precautionary measures were not adopted and secret information about concealing or running business of narcotics etc. was allowed to spread out, there would be a raid, but without success as in the meanwhile accused persons would manage to shift the drugs to some other place—Generally the residents of locality would hesitate to become witness of recovery memo due to which Investigating Officer was left with no option, but to pick-up a witness from the police—Non-compliance of S.103, Cr.P.C. could not be considered a strong ground for holding that the trial of accused was bad in the eyes of law—In the present case 200 grams of Charas from each slab was, separated as sample and sealed separately while remaining 4800 grams Charas was sealed separately—No iota of doubt was on record that the entire 6 slabs of the seized material was Charas—Counsel for accused had not been able to satisfy the court that a delay was occasioned in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner; neither any enmity had been shown between accused persons and the complainant—Burden of proof of allegation made by prosecution would rest on it and prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt every element of the offence with which accused was charged; which had sufficiently been discharged by prosecution in the present case—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2009  PLD  191   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NAZEER AHMED VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Police witnesses—Complainant as investigating officer—At the time of recovery from accused, investigating officer did not associate private persons as recovery witnesses and only relied upon his subordinates and furthermore he himself registered the complaint and investigated the case—Validity—Investigating officer of police or such other force, under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was not authorized to exclude independent witnesses nor it did away with principle of producing the best of available evidence-While keeping provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C., which were salutary intact for searches in respect of all other things, the legislature considered it expedient to do away with requirement of calling upon respectable persons to attend and witness search in respect of narcotics—Provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were a departure from general law of land and appeared to be outcome of an expediency so as to give a free hand to police and other forces while dealing with cases involving narcotics—By excluding applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases, legislature had not conferred any additional or extra sanctity upon officers of police or such other forces—Seizing officer excluded independent persons to act as witnesses of arrest and recovery and chose two of his subordinates to act as attesting witnesses, who too did not support prosecution case—Seizing officer himself acted as investigating officer and Trial Court finding him innocent acquitted one of the two persons sent for trial—High Court declined to maintain conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court, as accused was entitled to benefit of doubt—Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2009  MLD  133   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

DILDAR ALI VS State

1. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9(c), 25 & 51—Police Order (22 of 2002), Art. 18(4)—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Chemical Analyzer’s report had revealed that net weight of Charas, which was 130 grams was received by his office after more than two months of alleged incident—Presumption could be taken that sample was tampered with some mala fide intention—No private person from the locality was associated as Mashir in the case—Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. though would not be applicable in view of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but each case was to be seen on its own merits, nature and circumstances—Inspector himself registered the case and investigated same—Such act of Inspector was a violation of Article 18(4) of the Police Order, 2002—Concession of bail was extended to accused as his case was that of further inquiry.

2009  MLD  115   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

BAZ MUHAMMAD VS State

1. 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.

2008  SCMR  742   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)—Reappraisal of evidence—Recovery of narcotics—Non-compliance of provisions of S.103 Cr.P.C.—Failure to produce recovered narcotics before Trial Court—Raising of new plea—Competency—Charas weighing 28 Kgs and opium weighing 12 Kgs were recovered and taken into possession from the car in which accused persons were travelling—Trial Court convicted the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and imposed imprisonment for life, which sentence was maintained by High Court—Plea raised by accused persons was that recovered narcotic was not produced before Trial Court and provisions of S.103 Cr.P.C. were not complied with during recovery—Validity—Accused did not challenge nature of recovery substance being Charas and Opium before Trial Court or High Court, therefore, they could not turn around and say that the recovered material which was not produced at the time of trial of the case in court was other than narcotics—Prosecution witnesses were not even suggested by accused to produce remaining case property in court—Accused had neither objected nor prayed before Trial Court that entire case property should be sent to chemical examiner for his report nor they challenged that it was not the narcotic substance, thus such objection could not be raised before Supreme Court—Application of S.103 Cr.P.C. to offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1997 was excluded by S.25 of the said Act—Evidence of prosecution witnesses was straight, natural and reliable which was not shaken in any way by defence—No ill will or animosity against prosecution witnesses/police employees before occurrence had been pointed out or existed prior to the occurrence—Accused failed to point out any error of law or misreading of evidence in the judgment passed by High Court which could result into miscarriage of justice—Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court—Leave to appeal was refused.

2008  PLD  376   SUPREME-COURT

ARSHAD MAHMOOD VS State

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

2008  PLD  376   SUPREME-COURT

ARSHAD MAHMOOD VS State

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

2008  PLD  376   SUPREME-COURT

ARSHAD MAHMOOD VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Recovery of contraband from premises in absence of accused and without search warrant—Validity—Notwithstanding special provision of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, prosecution would be under heavy burden to prove possession of narcotics by accused through direct evidence—No one could be subjected to rigour of penal laws merely on basis of presumption without fulfilling essential requirement of law and command of the Constitution.

2008  PLD  376   SUPREME-COURT

ARSHAD MAHMOOD VS State

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

2008  SCMR  1616   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Non­compliance of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Effect–‘Non-citing of a public witness is not fatal to prosecution case as S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has specifically excluded S.103, Cr.P.C. from its application, in cases of narcotics.

2008  SCMR  1254   SUPREME-COURT

ZAFAR VS State

1. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Search—Evidence of private witness—Scope—Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. in narcotic cases has been excluded—Non-inclusion of any private witness is not a serious defect to vitiate conviction.

2008  YLR  2712   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Syed MEHMOOD SHAH VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.468 & 471—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Accused was arrested from the spot while trafficking huge quantity of Charas and opium along with arms and ammunitions in the vehicle bearing forged and bogus registration number—Prosecution witnesses were unanimous on the points of time, place, recovery. of arms and ammunitions and seizure of narcotics from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by accused—Samples of contraband articles sent for chemical analysis were also found by the Chemical Examiner to be Charas and opium—Planting of such huge quantity of narcotics was next to impossible for the police officials—Case of accused was of simple denial; it was a case of Nakabandi/checking and the prosecution witnesses being members of the checking party, their presence at the spot was natural—Police employees were the competent witnesses like any other independent witnesses and their evidence could not be discarded merely for the reason that they were the police employees—Contention of defence counsel regarding non joining of private witness, had no force, because S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of S.103, Cr. P. C. —Testimony of prosecution witnesses was corroborated by a positive report of chemical analysis—Delay of few days in sending the samples to Laboratory, which was due to rush of work, was of no consequence in view of huge quantity of narcotics recovered from the secret cavities of vehicle in possession of accused—Defence having not challenged conviction and sentence awarded to accused under Ss.468 & 471, P.P.C., was maintained—Prosecution had successfully established the guilt of accused and defence counsel had not been’ able to point out any error or illegality, misreading or non reading of evidence in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court—However, keeping in view the quantity of narcotics and old age of accused and fact that he was driver of the vehicle, the ends of justice would be met if death sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court was reduced to the imprisonment for life—Maintaining conviction of accused, death sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court was reduced to imprisonment for life and remaining conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against accused was upheld.

2008  PCrLJ  165   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAFDAR ALI VS State

2008  YLR  1591   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD AMIN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Recovery of huge quantity of charas i.e. five K. Gs., by the Police had not been denied by accused—No reason whatsoever had been advanced by accused for his false involvement in the case by the Police nor it had been so suggested to prosecution witness—No doubt the recovery witnesses and Investigating Officer, were employees of the Police, but it was not mandatory in narcotic cases to associate public witnesses at the time of recovery, because same had been dispensed with under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—No material contradictions existed in the statements of the recovery witnesses—Defence of accused that alleged charas belonged to other person was not well founded, because there was no reason for the Police to let off the real accused and implicate present accused in a false case—Chemical Examiner’s report was in positive—Prosecution, in circumstances was able to prove case against accused for having in possession 5 K. Gs. of charas—Accused, in circumstances had rightly been helot guilty under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997—Accused, however, was a patient of Asthma—Sentence of ten years’ R.I. along with fine would meet the ends of justice instead of 14 years’ R.I.—While maintaining conviction of accused, sentence of 14 years’ R.I. was reduced to 10 years’ R.I. and sentence of fine was also reduced from Rs. one lac to Rs. 50,000 accordingly.

2008  PCrLJ  751   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Sh. ZAHID JAVED VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 21 & 25—Bail, refusal of—Contention of the counsel for accused that case against accused ought to be disbelieved merely for the reason that raid had been conducted by an A.S.-I. in violation of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had no merit—F.I.R. itself reveals that after conducting raid and effecting recovery of the contraband, the matter had been referred to the Incharge Investigation of the concerned police station for further investigation—Provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, provided a complete answer to objection that while effecting recovery, provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had not been followed—Trial Court was to see as to why delay had been occasioned in dispatching the sealed parcels to the Chemical Examiner and what would be its effect—Contention of counsel for accused that C.I.A. personnel could not carry out a raid, was also devoid of any merit inasmuch as nothing was in law which stopped said personnel to enforce the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused stood involved in as many as sixteen criminal cases out of which at least one dozen were drug related cases—Bail was refused in circumstances.

2008  PCrLJ  550   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KHURAM SHAHZAD VS State

3. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9, 25 & 51—Bail, refusal of—Factually 3.5 kilograms opium powder was recovered from the possession of accused on his personal search by the complainant and other officials out of which 50 grams was separated and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis—Report of Chemical Examiner had shown that sample sent for analysis tested positive for opium as well as for alkaloid–Keeping in view the report of the Chemical Examiner as well as the quantum of narcotic recovered from accused, it could be safely said that the offence attracted the provisions of Ss.6 & 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997—Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been expressly excluded from applicability in cases of narcotic substances by virtue of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Non-compliance with the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C., thus, could not be considered a valid ground for extending the concession of bail to accused—Accused had not been able to provide any legal justification for keeping such a huge quantity of narcotic in his possession—Bar contained in S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to the grant of bail was attracted with full vigour in the case—Concession of post-arrest bail could not be extended to accused as prima facie, ample incriminating material was available on record to connect accused with crime alleged to have been committed by him.

2008  MLD  891   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Recovery of Charas and opium had been proved by prosecution by producing prosecution witness who was posted at C.I.A. Staff at relevant place and said prosecution witness was corroborated by another recovery witness—Defence could not create any dent in the evidence of said prosecution witnesses in cross-examination—Case property/Charas and opium were produced in the court in duly sealed parcels—Reports of the Chemical Examiner tendered in evidence were positive—Accused persons had not produced any evidence in support of their plea that they had been falsely involved in the case by Investigating Officer at the instance of one who was inimical to one of accused persons after taking considerable gratification from said person—Validity—Grievance of accused persons that Investigating Officer had not associated any private person with the recovery proceedings, was not sustainable because S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had dispensed with the association of the private person in the matters pertaining to recovery of narcotics—Prosecution, in circumstances, was able to prove the case against accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt—One Kg. Charas and one Kg. opium of the alleged total narcotics having been proved to be Charas and opium, while upholding the conviction, appeal filed by accused persons was partly allowed qua the sentence—Sentence of imprisonment for life each awarded to accused persons was reduced to 10 years’ R.I.—Sentence of fine, however was maintained.

2008  PLD  374   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

JAMEEL KHAN VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Forty-eight packets of opium were recovered from a secret drawer in the cabin of a truck—Each bundle contained 4 kilograms and total opium became 192 kilograms—Only two bundles of 4 kilograms each were sealed separately and were sent for examination and no sample was drawn from remaining 46 bags containing 188 kilograms—Version of the complainant regarding driving of truck in questions by two of accused persons turn by turn from N.-W.F.P. to Sindh Province, and recovery of opium from said truck was corroborated by other prosecution witnesses—Concealment of opium in question in the dash-board of the truck was in the common conscious knowledge of both the accused—No explanation was offered for travelling empty truck without load all the way from Sawabi (N.-W.F.P.) to the place of occurrence—Case of the conscious possession of 192 kilograms of opium was proved beyond reasonable doubt—No independent witness was associated in recovery proceedings and only Police Officials were witnesses in the case—In absence of any enmity or ulterior motives to implicate in the case, evidence of Police Official could be relied upon as Police Officials were as good witnesses as any other citizen unless any mala fides was established against them—Even otherwise provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded under provisions of S.25 of Control of ,Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused persons could not prove that they had only taken lift on truck as their said claim was not corroborated through any other independent witness—Case of acquitted accused was totally on different footing from the case of accused persons—Prosecution had proved its case against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt by producing consistent, corroborative, direct, cogent, confidence inspiring evidence—No illegality, irregularity, infirmity or mis-appreciation of evidence had been pointed out by the defence in findings of Trial Court which convicted accused—Appeal filed against conviction was dismissed, however substantive sentence awarded to accused was modified from life to sentence of 14 years’ R.I., whereas conviction awarded to the third accused was set aside and he was acquitted and released.

2008  YLR  1214   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD FAIZ VS State

1. 25—Mode of making searches and arrest—Though private persons are not required to witness the recovery of narcotic substances as provided under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, yet the place of recovery and the time of recovery have to be kept in view to prevent false implication of innocent people, looking at the general conduct of police.

2008  YLR  1214   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD FAIZ VS State

1. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(b) & 25—Police Order (22 of 2002), Art. 18(4)—Bail, grant of—S.H.O. of the police station had carried out the investigation in clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 18(4), Police Order, 2002, which he was not competent to do-.–Although, in view of S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the provisions of S.103, Cr. P. C. were not applicable in the case, yet the place of recovery and time of recovery had to be kept in view to prevent false implication of innocent people looking at the general conduct of police—Recovery of heroin had been effected from the accused from near a Chowk at noon time where several persons might have been present, but admittedly neither the police procured the attendance of any independent persons from the public, nor made any efforts in that regard—Heroin weighing 270 grams contained in five packets, as per F.I.R., was recovered from the accused, out of which 50 grams of heroin was sent to Chemical Analyser for report—Expert opinion, thus, would be available at the most regarding 54 grams of heroin pertaining to one packet of the case property and the case might even fall under S.9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.

2008  PLD  14   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

PERVAIZ AHMED VS State

1. 497(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 9(b) & 25—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Charas in question was found in the shape of five separate slabs/patties, but only one slab/patti was sent for the chemical analysis report—No expert opinion could be available regarding remaining four slabs/patties, as to whether those contained any narcotic substance or not—Since only one slab/patti of charas was separately sent for the chemical analysis report, which weighed one kilogram, the chemical report would be conclusive only to the extent of one kilogram of charas—Question whether the entire recovered substance was covered by the definition of narcotics, would be properly determined at the stage of trial after sufficient evidence was brought on record—Tentative assessment showed that chemical analysis report to the extent of only one slab/patti weighing one kilogram, prima facie would constitute an offence under S.9(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was punishable to the extent of seven years—Place where incident allegedly occurred was situated in the midst of the city which was a thickly-populated area, but no private person from the locality was associated as witness/mashir in the case—Section 25 Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997, provided that provisions S.103, Cr.P.C. would not be applicable, but still each case had to be seen in its true perspective with regard to the background and surrounding circumstances—In the present case, as a natural circumstance , some persons from the locality, must have been available who had witnessed the incident, but those were not associated-Case of accused calling for further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail .

2007  YLR  1962   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

WAHID GUL VS State

—-Ss. 9(c) & 25—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2000, Rr.4 & 5—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution witnesses were unanimous on all the broad features of the case and their statements bore all shades of truthfulness—N

2007  YLR  1799   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABDUL HASSAN VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Both witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination in order to shatter prosecution ve

2007  YLR  1767   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

IBRAHIM VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Both prosecution witnesses had fully supported prosecution story and had remained absolutely consistent, coherent and had successfully faced the test of cross-examination—Contradicti

2007  YLR  904   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SABIR KHAN VS State

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

2007  YLR  373   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

GHUNCHA GUL VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 25, 29 & 48—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—-Search proceedings—Both prosecution witnesses were consistent on material points and no contradiction whatsoever could be pointe

2007  PCRLJ  1677   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

GULBAR KHAN VS State

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

2007  MLD  639   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

State VS RAZA KHAN

—Ss. 9 & 25-Appreciation of evidence—Petition for enhancement of sentence—Accused were convicted and sentenced to suffer ten years’ R.I. each along with fine—State in its revision petition had sought enhancement in sentence awarded to accused by t

2007  MLD  408   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. NOOR BIBI VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Prosecution witnesses had supported the recovery of 6900 grams of Charas from the possession of accused—Both said witnesses had demonstrated complete unanimity on material points

2007  PLD  160   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS State

—Ss.9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Prosecution had proved its cast against accused beyond any shadow of doubt—Marginal witnesses were put to the test of cross-examination, b

2007  PLD  135   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AAMIR KHAN VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution witnesses who were marginal witnesses of memo. of recovery through which contraband charas was taken into possession and Investigating Officer, were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-exam

2007  YLR  269   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mst. SHAH TAREENA VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Police witnesses—Competency—Violation of S.103 of Cr.P.C.-Effect—Allegation against accused/appellant was that 12 Kgs. of Charas was

2007  YLR  242   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MIR HASSAN VS State

–Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Huge quantity of heroin weighing 25-Kilograms was recovered from the bonnet of the motorcar driven by accused—Recovery of narcotic substance had been made from acc

2007  PCRLJ  1502   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE alias SHEEQA VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 21, 25 & 31—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution witnesses having no malice or enmity against the accused had supported recovery of 1010 grams “Charas” from him—Fake plantation of such quantity of “Charas” was not probable without any a

2007  PCRLJ  426   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MITHA KHAN VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 25 & 48—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—No material contradiction existed either in prosecution version as given in F.I.R. or deposition made by prosecution witnesses, whose statements had been reappraised—Said prosecut

2007  MLD  46   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FAZAL NABI VS State

—-Ss. 9(b) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Violation of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Effect—Police witnesses—Competence of—Accused a first offender and previous non-convict—Allegation a

2007  YLR  3105   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

HANOOK BABAR MASIH VS State

—S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c); 25 & 51—Bail, refusal of—Accused could not establish that he had been involved in case mala fide due to enmity with one Head Constable of the Police–~-Narcotic material/Charas wei

2007  PCRLJ  493   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

State VS KASHIF ALI

—S. 497(5)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9 & 25–Bail, cancellation of—Bail was granted to accused-on the ground that prosecution had failed to arrange private witnesses to act as Mashirs—Validity—Spy information

2007  PCRLJ  139   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Sayed GHULAM MUSTAFA VS State

–S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 25—Bail, grant of—Accused was apprehended in the town in broad-daylight, but no person from public had been cited as witness—Provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances

2007  MLD  1696   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

PIR BUX VS State

—-S. 497, (2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 25—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Notwithstanding the bar contained under S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 thereby excluding the applicability of S.103, Cr

2006  PLD  39   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 25, 29, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103 & 516-A—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution, in order to prove apprehension of accused and recovery of Charas and opium from the secret cavities of the car, had produced two wi

2006  YLR  2243   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AKHTAR-UL-ISLAM VS State

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

2006  YLR  340   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUNIR KHAN VS State

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

2006  PLD  176   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MAQSOOD AKBAR VS State

—-Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Both complainant and prosecution witness had supported recovery of 1900 grams of opium from possession of accused at the given date, time and place—Both said witnesses had demonstrated complete unanimity on

2006  PCRLJ  1061   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD AMIN VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Prosecution, in order to prove apprehension of accused and recovery of contraband Charas from his possession, had produced two witnesses—

2006  PCRLJ  988   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AMJAD VS State

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

2006  PCRLJ  988   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AMJAD VS State

–Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution witnesses had fully supported prosecution story—Said witnesses remained absolutely consistent, coherent and had successfully faced the test of cross-ex

2006  PCRLJ  887   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAID ALAM VS State

–Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of’ evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Prosecution witnesses were unanimous on all broad features of the case and their statements bore all shades of truthfulness—No reason app

2006  PCRLJ  846   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

IQBAL KHAN VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 21, 25, 29, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.75—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution, in order to establish its case had produced two witnesses—Defence could not prove as to why police wo

2006  PCRLJ  316   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

FIDA MUHAMMAD VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Recovery proceedings—Accused had contended that as per statement of prosecution witness independent witnesses were available at the scene of occurrence, but they

2006  PCRLJ  228   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NIAZ MUHAMMAD VS State

—Ss. 9(b) & 25—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Search and recovery proceedings—Witnesses produced by prosecution to prove factum of

2006  MLD  1121   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD ALI VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Both complainant and other prosecution witness had supported recovery of 129 kilograms Charas from one motor car and 322.400 kilograms from the other—Both wit

2006  MLD  361   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. GRANA VS State

—Ss. 9(c), 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.52 & 103—Appreciation of evidence—Report of Chemical Examiner was in positive and all prosecution witnesses were consistent on material points and no contradiction whatsoever could be poin

2006  MLD  361   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. GRANA VS State

—Ss.9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Recovery and search proceedings—Purpose of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Purpose of S.103, Cr.P.C. was to ensure that testimony given in Court in regard to the result of a search, should not depend upon

2006  PLD  74   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD DAUD VS State

–Ss. 9(c), 21, 22, 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103 & 537—Appreciation of evidence—Search and seizure proceedings—Prosecution had established factum of recovery beyond shadow of doubt—Arrest, seizure and investigation by an i

2006  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  PLD  780   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD IDREES VS State

—Ss. 6, 9 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103 & 156(1)(2)—Appreciation of evidence—Investigation was conducted by C.I.A. officials—Non-compliance of S.156(1)(2), Cr.P.C.—Effect—On secret information, C.I.A. official/complainant

2006  PLD  325   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Mst. SHABANA RIYASAT VS State

–Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Recovery had been effected from one of the rooms of the house of co-accused in his absence—Said recovery was effected in presence of two Mashirs, but prosecution had not examined one of the said Mashirs—Pol

2006  YLR  1042   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHABIR AHMAD VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Property secured from possession of accused beyond doubt was Charas—Witnesses did not specifically state that 10 grams of Charas were drawn from one packet only b

2006  PLD  698   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

KHAN BACHA VS State

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

2005  YLR  529   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

JALAT KHAN VS State

–Arts. 3/4—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9 & 25–­Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.103—Appreciation of evidence–­Prosecution, in order to prove factum of apprehension of accused and recovery of Charas from possession

2005  YLR  287   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SHEREEN ZADA VS THE STATE

—-Ss.497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9, 25, 74 & 76—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4—Bail, refusal of—Accused had contended that no person from the locality having been associated with

2005  PCrLJ  1972   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. BAKHTA VS State

—-Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103–Appreciation of evidence—Positive report of Chemical Examiner and’ both prosecution witnesses had supported recovery of five Kilo grams Charas from possession of accused—Evidence of said

2005  PCrLJ  1966   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. NAWSHADA VS State

–Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.103 & 340(2)—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Prosecution witnesses had fully supported prosecution story—Said witnesses had remained absolutely consistent, coherent and had

2005  PCrLJ  1958   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AKHTAR HUSSAIN VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Report of Chemical Examiner was positive—Prosecution witnesses had unanimously deposed that heroin in alleged quantity had been recovered from car in question at given time—Complete harmony was in depositi

2005  PCrLJ  1949   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SARTAJ ALI VS State

—Ss. 9 & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Sentence, reduction in—Both prosecution witnesses had unanimously deposed that Charas in alleged quantity had been recovered from accused on pointed date and time—Complete unanimity was found in depositions o

2005  PCrLJ  1858   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AFSAR KHAN VS State

–Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Recovery proceedings—Section 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had excluded application of S.103, Cr.P.C.

2005  PCrLJ  1562   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mst. PARVEEN VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Appreciation of evidence—Accused was alleged to have in her possession 7 packets of Charas weighing 7 kilograms–Meagre quantity was separated out of the lot and was sent to Forensic Scien

2005  MLD  1991   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Syed WALI VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution witnesses had fully supported prosecution story and had remained absolutely consistent, coherent and had resolutely withstood lengthy cross-examination—Evidence of said witnesses had established

2005  MLD  1949   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

KHAN SAHIB alias DOCTOR VS State

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Evidence of police—Recovery proceedings—Contention of accused concerning violation of S.103, Cr.P.C. seemed to be fallacious when examined in the light of provi

2005  MLD  1935   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD SAUD VS State

—-Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Huge quantity of Charas weighing seven kilo grams had been recovered from secret cavity of “teapais” in question, owned by accused—Trial Court had discussed every aspect of the case with minute particulars

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  PCRLJ  568   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALLAH DITTA VS State

—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9, 21 & 25—Bail, grant of—Contention was that accused who was found in possession of two Kgs. of poppy-straws at the time of his arrest, was unaware of the fact whether poppy-straws wou

2005  MLD  966   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KHALIQ JAN VS State

–Ss.9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103–­Appreciation of evidence—Police Officer was not prohibited under the law to be a complainant if he was a witness to the commission of the offence and also to be an Investigating Officer—Ap

2005  PLD  4   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

KARL JOHN JOSEPH VS THE STATE

—Ss. 9(c) & 25—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(e)—Appreciation of evidence—Conviction of accused—Both prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length, but nothing could be brought on record to contradict evidence of both witn

2004  PLD  246   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Mian GUL BACHA KHAN VS THE STATE

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

2004  PLD  115   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SHAMSHADA VS THE STATE

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

2004  PCRLJ  1076   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUZAFFAR MAHMOOD alias ZAFRI VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103–Appreciation of evidence—Search—Reduction in sentence—Mitigating circumstances—Contradiction appeared in two statements of Police Officer one made in-Court as prosecution witness and

2004  PCRLJ  732   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUNIR AHMAD VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103–Appreciation of evidence—Recovery proceedings—Accused was apprehended red-handed by police party while in possession of a huge quantity of narcotics—Report submitted by Chemical Examine

2003  YLR  1775   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABDUL MAJID VS THE STATE

—-S. 9(c), 25 & 29—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Appreciation of evidence—Statements of Investigating Officer and other Police Officials were corroborated by driver of bus from where Charas was recovered—Driver of the bus, who was t

2003  YLR  1748   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AFSAR KHAN VS THE STATE

—Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Deposition of Investigating Officer who had also conducted raid, with regard to recovery which was affirmed by other prosecution witness, could safely be depended upon as he was not only a responsible

2003  PCRLJ  1392   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ZAR GUL VS THE STATE

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

2003  PCRLJ  502   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD ILYAS VS THE STATE

—–Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 25—Non-compliance with provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C.–Complainant was claimed to have effected recovery on the basis of a prior information and no witness from the locality was

2003  PCRLJ  470   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NEK MUHAMMAD VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 25—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Ars.3/4—Bail—Plea of the accused was with regard to non-compliance with provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Validity—Pl

2003  PCRLJ  1515   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

JAN GUL VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9(c) & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Prosecution had substantiated its case through production of oral and documentary evidence—No material contradiction had been found either in prosecution version as given in F.I.R. or the deposition made by

2002  PCRLJ  1506   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

RAHIM DAD VS THE STATE

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

2002  PCRLJ  1490   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

JANA GUL VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.510–Appreciation of evidence—Material on record had proved that accused was apprehended by police officer from Railway Platform and Charas weighing 1900 grams was recovered from a tin of ghee carr

2002  PCRLJ  1470   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

FEROZ SHAH VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 25—Bail, grant of—Huge quantity of Charas had been recovered from motor car wherein accused was accompanying the driver/co-accused—Confessional statement of co-accused, exo

2002  PCRLJ  1402   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MAHMOOD KHAN VS THE STATE

—Ss. 6, 7, 9, 25, 74 & 76—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3/4—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103–Appreciation of evidence—Stance taken by accused that contraband which belonged to another person had been foisted

2002  PCRLJ  1386   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABDULLAH SHAH VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 497(1) & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 25—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13–Bail, grant of—Accused was directly nominated in F.I.R. for an offence which carried punishment falling under prohibito

2002  PCRLJ  1305   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SARTAJ VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9, 25 & 34—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103–Appreciation of evidence—Report of Chemical Examiner had validly been received in evidence—Both prosecution witnesses had stated before the Court that parcel containing sample which was

2002  PCRLJ  971   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

BARAT VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 9 25 & 51(1)—Bail—Huge quantity of “Charas” was recovered from the possession of accused—Report of the Chemical Examiner was in positive—Recovery witnesses had no ill-w

2002  PCRLJ  344   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SOHRAB VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9(c) & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103–Appreciation of evidence—Sentence—Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. were not applicable to the case—Police officials deposing as prosecution witnesses had no ill-will or malice against the a

2002  YLR  3598   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL SATTAR VS THE STATE

—-S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 25 & 51–Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3/4—Bail, grant of—Accused was apprehended red-handed while in possession of Chards weighing 2-½ K.gs. –No gro

2002  YLR  191   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

JAMSHAID HAIDER VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 25 & 51—Bail, grant of—Accused was named in the F.I.R. and the offence against the accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.—Report of the Chemical E

2002  PCRLJ  453   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NAZAR HUSSAIN VS THE STATE

—Ss. 497, 103, 59, 154 & 156(2)—Control of Norcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b), 21, 25, 761 29 & 51—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4—Bail—Accused was allegedly apprehended red-handed by the police party

2001  SCMR  36   SUPREME-COURT

FIDA JAN VS THE STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.103—Recovery of narcotics—Failure to comply with the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C.–Effect—Application of. S.103, Cr.P.C. has been excluded under the provisions of S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

2001  MLD  1731   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

FIDA MUHAMMAD  VS THE STATE

—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(c), 25 & 34—Bail, grant of—Allegation against the accused was that one kilogram of Charas was recovered from the side pocket of the shirt of the accused and nine kilograms was recove

2001  PLD  152   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NASRULLAH VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 & 72—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.156(2)—Entry, search, seizure or arrest—Provisions of Ss.21, 22 & 26, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are mandatory in nature and observance thereof would be imperative

2001  PLD  369   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALI HASSAN VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 25 & 9(b)—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Search and arrest, mode of—Exemption of applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C.–Effect—Exception of applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. in cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 a

2000  PCRLJ  935   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABDUL GHAFOOR  VS STATE

—-S. 497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 25—Bail—Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had categorically excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C. to the cases registered under the said Act and non-as

2000  PCRLJ  907   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUR REHMAN MUBARAK  VS STATE

—-S. 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.25–Recovery proceedings—Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Applicability–Recovery of narcotics from a running vehicle or made on a highway or roadsides—Validity—Provision of S.25, Contro

2000  PCRLJ  657   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GUL HASSAN DERO  VS STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Mode of making search and arrest—Statutory exception—Applicability of S.103, Cr.P.C. has been specifically excluded in the cases covered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—When the statute evolves its own procedure for the purpose of search and investigation, then impliedly it excludes the applicability of general law of search and investigation to that extent.

1999  YLR  1405   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NADIR KHAN  VS STATE

—-Ss. 497 & 103—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4–Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 51 & 25—Bail–Quantity of heroin recovered from the accused being more than one kilogram, the offence was

1999  PCRLJ  728   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

BUNER GUL  VS STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S. 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103—Search and recovery—Non-association of independent witnesses —Validity—Held, under S.25, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, application of S.103, Cr.P.C. having been categorically excluded there was no need to associate independent witnesses.

1999  PCRLJ  2096   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ZOJAN  VS MUHAMMAD HASASN

—-Ss. 497 & 103—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 51 & 25—Bail—Heroin weighing 1500 grams having been recovered from the accused, his case, fell under S.9(c) o

1998  PCRLJ  1628   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

STRONG BUILT ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE  VS FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY LTD.

—-Ss. 497 & 103—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 25—Bail, grant of—Accused had contended that Police Officer who had searched the accused and had registered case against him being of a rank of Sub Inspector of Police, was n