Section 34 : Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, etc.
2023 MLD 793 ISLAMABAD
AQEEL MIRZA VS State
Ss. 9(c) & 34—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A—Transportation of narcotics—Articles connected with narcotics—Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases—Scope—Appellant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby his application for superdari of vehicle, from which narcotics was recovered, was dismissed—Appellant had taken self-contradictory pleas regarding the person having possession of the vehicle—Appellant could not produce any convincing evidence to the effect that he had no knowledge of the occurrence—Prima facie, the appellant was in knowledge that his vehicle was being used for carrying huge quantity of narcotics—Appellant was not entitled for superdari of the vehicle—Appeal was dismissed.
2016 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT
TAIMOOR KHAN VS State
34—Narcotics Testing Laboratory—Chemical Examiner, opinion of—Chemical Examiner had a heavy responsibility to give well-reasoned, authoritative and detailed opinion about a particular narcotic substance.
2016 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT
TAIMOOR KHAN VS State
34—Narcotics Testing Laboratory—Chemical Examiners—Ill-equipped laboratories—Chemical Examiners lacking required qualifications and experience—Lack of interest shown by Executive in assisting courts in narcotics cases—Observations made with respect to the (dismal) state of affairs of existing Narcotics Testing Laboratory and Chemical Examiners. [Minority view]
2014 PCrLJ 1075 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AWAL RAEF VS State
Ss. 9(c), 34, 35 & 36—Recovery of narcotic substance—Appreciation of evidence—Chemical analysis—Industrial Analytical Centre report—Scope—Poppy straw weighing 2125 kilograms was recovered from vehicle driven by accused—Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life—Plea raised by accused was that chemical analysis was not done in accordance with law—Validity—Laboratory report produced by prosecution of alleged test violated the mandate of law, as Industrial Analytical Centre, even to prosecution was neither notified by Federal or Provincial Government to be a testing laboratory nor any official of such laboratory had been notified as Analyst—Such report submitted by prosecution could not be made basis of conviction for offence under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Alleged samples which according to prosecution were recovered from six jute bags out of 40 and were weighing six grams were never sent for chemical analysis—Remaining recovered substance was never sealed, therefore, fresh samples could not be drawn from remaining case property, as no sanctity could be attached to recovered remaining substance which had been allegedly lying in godown of authorities for more than five years and that too in unsealed condition—High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge—Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
2013 YLR 1683 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ABDUR RAHIM alias RAHIMAY VS State
Ss. 9(c), 34 & 35—Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Contention of counsel for accused was that as the contraband was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory beyond stipulated period of 72 hours, it had made the report of Forensic Science Laboratory illegal and rendered the seizure invalid in the eye of law as provided in Rule 4 or 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001—Validity—Said Rules never placed any bar on the Investigating Officer to send the sample beyond seventy two hours of the seizure or receive the Forensic Science Laboratory’s report after fifteen days—Delay otherwise in sending the incriminating articles to concerned quarter for expert opinion, could not be treated as fatal to the prosecution case, nor it would vanish the evidentiary values of such a report—Forensic Science Laboratory’s Report had been signed by Chemical Examiner as well as by Chemical Expert, who were authorized officers in that respect under Ss.34 & 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Objection of accused that report was signed by Assistant Chemical Examiner, was repelled as any report submitted by duly Notified Assistant Chemical Examiner was a report of Government Analyst within the meaning of Ss.34 & 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and was admissible in evidence—Objection on admissibility of Forensic Science Laboratory’s Report, as far as non-presence or non-availability of embossing marks was concerned, recovery of contraband could not be negated on mere non-presence of embossing marks on the Forensic Science Laboratory’s Report, as nowhere was provided in Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 that such like report would have any embossing marks—No such rule had been framed so far—Recovery of huge quantity of narcotic from accused had been proved by the raiding party, who had no personal reasons to involve accused in the false case—Admission of accused that he dealt with business of narcotic, but he repented his ways, also supported the prosecution case without reasonable doubt—Legal sentence awarded to accused, did not require any interference by High Court, in circumstances.
2013 PCrLJ 1633 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD SHAKOOR VS State
Ss. 34, 35 & 36—Government Analyst—Scope—Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner both when notified under Ss.34 & 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, are considered to be Government Analyst as defined under S.36 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2009 PLD 40 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
SHAH FAISAL VS State
Ss. 34 & 35—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.510—Setting up Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory and report of Chemical Examiner and Serologist etc.—Government was required to set up Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory or notify any other Laboratory or Institute as Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory—Under S.34 of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in addition to setting up a Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, the Government had also been authorized to notify an already set up Laboratory or Institution to be a Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory—In pursuance of such powers the Government had issued Notification—Forensic Science Laboratory was a Narcotics Testing Laboratory set up by the Provincial Government and the Chemical Examiners posted therein had been notified to be Chemical Examiner under S.510, Cr.P.C.—After having been declared to be a Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory for the purpose of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the report of the Chemical Examiner would be a report as contemplated under S.34 of the Act—Chemical Examiner and Assistant Chemical Examiner appointed in the said Laboratory would be considered to be Government Analyst as envisaged under S.35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Any report submitted by a Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner notified under S.510, Cr.P.C. was a report of Government Analyst within the meaning of Ss.34 & 35 of the Act and admissible in evidence—In absence of any express exclusion of S.510, Cr.P.C., the reports of Chemical Examiner and Assistant Examiner notified under S.510, Cr.P.C. were also admissible in the case registered under the provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Provisions of S.35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, having been couched in affirmative words, same would not affect the provisions of S.510, Cr.P.C. making the report of duly notified Chemical Examiner admissible.
2009 PCrLJ 232 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI VS SAJJAD MUHAMMAD JAFFER
Ss. 6, 9, 34, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.417 & 265-K—Appeal against acquittal—Special Court allowing application of accused persons filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. having acquitted them, Authority had filed appeal against said acquittal—Consignment in question was sent to Government Laboratory for examination and report of the laboratory was in negative—Consignment was then sent to Research Institute of Chemistry, which was not a Notified Laboratory within the meaning of S.34 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—Government Laboratory had already opined that consignment did not contain any narcotic substance—Second Laboratory was not a notified laboratory and its Research Officer who gave the report, had not been notified as an official to test the material of narcotic substances under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Laboratory and the officer who gave the report did not come within the ambit of sections 34 to 36 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Such report, in circumstances, did not fulfil the requirements of law—No illegality or irregularity being in order of acquittal of accused, same did not require any interference.
2007 PCRLJ 156 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SAEED VS State
—Ss. 34 & 47—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.510—Federal Government’s Notification No. S.R.O. 596(I)/97—Chemical Examiner not notified by Federal Government—Chemical Examiner’s Report—Admissibility—Federal Government had issued Notifi
2007 PCRLJ 156 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SAEED VS State
—Ss. 34, 35 & 47—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.510, Proviso—Chemical Examiner’s report—Report not strictly in accordance with provisions of Ss.34 & 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Applicability of S.510, Cr.P.C.—Scope–
2007 PCRLJ 1984 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
State VS SAJJAD MUHAMMAD JAFFER
—Ss. 9, 34, 35, 36 & 48—Appreciation of evidence—Government Analyst, report of—Allegation against accused was that their consignment contained narcotics but report of Government Laboratory was negative—Authorities again sent the sample to a Rese
2005 MLD 963 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mst. GULSHAN BIBI VS State
–Ss. 497 & 52-Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 34—S.R.O. 596(I)/97, dated 7-7-1997-Bail refusal of-ÂAccused was found in conscious possession of 15 K.Gs. Charas and recovery had been supported by witnesses of recovery memo.
2005 YLR 2321 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHERZADA KHAN VS State
—Ss. 34, 35 & 36—S.R.O. 596(I)/97 dated 7-8-1997—Recovery of huge quantity of heroin from active possession of accused—Chemical Examiner’s report— Scope—Provision of S.34, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 only directs that any institut
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
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 PCRLJ 951 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAYYAZ HUSSAIN VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 9(c), 34 & 35—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.540 & 439—Summoning of Chemical Examiner etc.—All Narcotics Testing Laboratories set up by the Provincial Governments had been treated to be Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratories for the
2001 PCRLJ 879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TASUWWAR HUSSAIN VS THE STATE
—Ss. 9-B, 34 & 35—Appreciation of evidence—Statement of the complainant Inspector who headed the raiding party, -caught hold of the accused on the spot and recovered heroin weighing one kilogram from him, was corroborated by another member of the ra
1999 YLR 870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAB NAWAZ, S.H.O. VS STATE
Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 34, 35 & 36—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.510—Narcotics Testing Laboratories and their reports —Validity–Various Laboratories have been set up by the Federal Government and Provincial Governments under S.34 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which have been authorised and are competent to carry out the analysis and test the samples referred to them—Besides these Laboratories, Government Analysts have been appointed and some officers, having required qualifications and competency in the subject, have been declared as such by virtue of Ss.35 & 36 of the said Act—Any report given by the Chemical Examiner or by any Expert working in any Narcotics Testing Laboratory is valid and admissible in evidence subject to the provisions of S.510, Cr.P.C.—Services of the Public Analyst may not be availed in routine analytical work of the heroin samples, but in controversial or complicated cases Public Analyst can be approached.
1998 PCRLJ 832 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
RAFIULLAH VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
—-Ss. 561-A & 169—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34—Discharge of accused on the basis of defence evidence—Validity—Investigating Officer not only did not mention name of accused in either of the columns of challan, but had discharged him under
1998 PCRLJ 828 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL, SUB-INSPECTOR POLICE, DISTRICT KEHARI MITROO
—-Ss. 561-A & 156(2)—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.20, 21, 34, 35 & 47—Quashing of F.I.R.—F,I.R. recorded against accused by Sub-Inspector of Police was sought to be quashed on ground that according to Notification S.R.0. 33