Case Laws on Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Absence of any apparent reason to falsely implicate the accused for possession of 15.6 kg of narcotic, negated the hypothesis of fake imposition---Methodology adopted by accused of transporting drugs while travelling with wife and children was not unusual in drug trafficking cases---Presence of a lady constable who frisked and arrested the wife/co-accused went a long way to support the prosecution case---Inspector and lady constable (official witnesses) furnished details of the arrest and recovery; their statements were in a comfortable and confident unison on all the salient aspects of the raid as well as details collateral therewith---Prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2021 SCMR 198
Non-association of witnesses from the public---Supreme Court observed that absence of a witness from the public, despite possible availability was not a new phenomenon; it was reminiscent of a long drawn apathy depicting public reluctance to come forward in assistance of law, due to exasperating legal procedures and lack of witness protection---In such circumstances, evidence of official witnesses was the only available option to combat the menace of drug trafficking with the assistance of functionaries of the State; their evidence, if found confidence inspiring, may implicitly be relied upon without hesitation, as their status as witnesses was second to none. 2021 SCMR 198
R. 6---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Report of Government Analyst---protocol s/procedure---Scope---Substantial/sufficient compliance with R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 ('Rule 6')---Plea on behalf of accused that forensic report in the present case did not mention the details of protocol s used, as such the nature of contraband was never established---Held, that tests carried out by the analyst were vividly mentioned in his report, under the heading "Test Performed on Received Item(s) of Evidence" followed by the heading "Results and Conclusions"---Said details in the forensic report substantially/sufficiently qualified to meet the statutory requirements under R. 6 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Conviction of accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was maintained---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. 2020 SCMR 460 SHAZIA BIBI vs State
Any test conducted without a protocol lost its reliability and evidentiary value---To serve the purposes of the Control of narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Control of narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, the report of the Government Analyst must contain three elements, i.e the tests applied; the protocols applied to carry out these tests; and, the result of the test(s)---Report of the Government Analyst which did not specify the protocols of the tests applied did not meet the
requirements of the law---Such a Report could not be relied upon for the conviction of an accused. [Context of 'protocols' as explained in the judgment reported as (Ikramullah's case 2015 SCMR 1002, Imam Bakhsh's case 2018 SCMR 2039 and Khair-ul-Bashar's case 2019 SCMR 930) further clarified]. PLD 2020 SC 57Held, that the accused was driving the relevant vehicle when it was intercepted---Report received from the Chemical Examiner had declared that the recovered substance was charas---Prosecution witnesses deposing about the alleged recovery, were public servants who had no ostensible reason to falsely implicate the accused in a case of present nature---Said witnesses had made consistent statements fully incriminating the accused in the alleged offence---Nothing had been brought on record which could possibly be used to doubt the veracity of the said witnesses---Guilt of accused had been established beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence recorded against the accused and upheld by the courts below was maintained. PLD 2020 SC 132
R. 6---Control of narcot ic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcot ics--- Report of Government Analyst---Protocols/procedure---Confirmatory forensic conclusions to establish narcot ic character of a substance must be supported by the protocol/procedure mandated by R. 6 of the Control of narcot ic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Non-compliance of R. 6 would render the report of the Government Analyst inconclusive, suspicious and untrustworthy and would not meet the evidentiary assumption attached to such report 2020 SCMR 196
narcot ics were not recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle---Appellant, being in possession of valid documents showing his undisputed ownership, was entitled to the custody of the vehicle---Appeal was allowed. 2020 MLD QUETTA 59
R.6---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 36(1)---Narcotics---Government analyst report, preparation of---Mandatory requirements---Report of the Government Analyst, prepared in consequence of R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, must provide for, firstly, tests and analysis of the alleged drug; secondly, the results of the test(s) carried out, and, thirdly the test protocol s applied to carry out these tests---Said three elements formed the fundamental and the core elements of a valid Report prepared by a Government Analyst---Non-compliance of R. 6 and absence of any of the said mandatory elements/requirements frustrated the purpose and object of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ('the Act'), thereby diminishing the reliability and evidentiary value of the Report---Under S. 36 of the Act, the report of the Government Analyst, whilst being admissible in evidence without formal proof, was rebuttable and could be questioned by the accused, inter alia, on the ground of non-compliance of the information required under R. 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Judgment reported as State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) purposively interpreted the Act and (rightly) found R. 6 to be a mandatory provision regarding information to be reflected in the Report of the Analysts. 2019 SCMR 930 KHAIR-UL-BASHAR vs State
Ss. 9(c) & 36---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, R. 6---Possession of narcotic drug---Delay in registration of FIR---Safe custody and transmission---Proof---Report of Government Analyst---Non-mentioning of protocol s of test applied---Effect---Prosecution case against accused was that he tried to smuggle heroin from international airport---Police, on secret information, apprehended accused and recovered huge quantity of heroin---Held; recovery was made at 12:45 a.m. (night) whereas complaint was prepared at 9:30 a.m. (next morning); such delay raised questions qua veracity of the case and signaled towards consultation, concoction, inducement and procurement on the part of prosecution---Forty five cartons were checked and only footballs were found therein, on further checking of two cartons, heroin was found therein---Prosecution witnesses could not separately point out before the court about the cartons from which heroin was allegedly recovered and could not prove safe custody and transmission of heroin to the Government Analyst---Prosecution witness deposed before court that he handed over recovered parcel to other prosecution witness who deposed on the same lines---Complainant deposed that he transmitted the recovered parcel to the Government Analyst---Report of Government Analyst revealed that he received parcels/samples from Incharge Anti-Narcotic Force by hand---Government Analyst had not mentioned the protocol s of tests conducted by him which made the report inconclusive and rendered the same invalid and not reliable for the purpose of conviction---Appeal was allowed in circumstances and conviction and sentence recorded against accused was set aside. 2019 YLR Lah 925 MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MUGHAL vs State
R. 3---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9---Possession of narcotic---Narcotic Testing Laboratories---Qualification of Government Analyst---Supreme Court directed that the Federal Government and the respective Provincial Governments shall ensure that the Government analysts in the Narcotics Testing Laboratories were qualified as per R. 3 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001('the Rules'); that the tests and their protocol s were common across the country and as per International guidelines; that the officials of the National and Provincial Narcotics Testing Laboratories shall follow the Rules in the best manner possible so that efficient and meaningful chemical analysis could be achieved, and that in case of failure, disciplinary action shall be taken against the officials, in accordance with law. 2018 SCMR 2039 The STATE vs IMAM BAKHSH
sentencing policy and bail stage
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498---Recovery of narcotic drugs--- bail , grant of--- Categorizing of sentence---Neither categorization of sentencing nor any guess work or speculative exercise could be undertaken by court at bail stage to enlarge an accused on bail in such crimes--- Such categorization amounts to pre-empting the mind of Trial Court, controlling its powers in the matter of sentencing accused and determining quantum of sentence upon his conviction 2015 SCMR 1077 SOCHA GUL vs State
S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Reappraisal of evidence---Accused was caught red-handed and charas (narcotic) weighing 5 kilograms contained in 5 packets was recovered from his exclusive possession---Some quantity of narcotics was extracted from each packet and five separate sealed parcels for chemical analysis were prepared and forwarded to the office of the Forensic Science Agency---Report of the Chemical Examiner was positive---Recovery witnesses remained consistent on each and every material point and no material contradiction in their statements was pointed out---Said witnesses had no animosity or ill will towards the accused, hence they had no motive to falsely implicate the accused---Statements of said witnesses were further corroborated by the report of the Chemical Examiner---Although there was a minor delay in sending the sample parcels to the Forensic Science Agency but the rules to that effect were directory and not mandatory---Nothing on record established that the said parcels were ever tampered with rather the evidence led by the prosecution established that the parcels received by the said agency, remained intact---Both the courts below had correctly observed that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the accused---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. 2017 SCMR 1874
Ss. 9(c), 2(t), 2(w) & 2(x)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 , R. 6---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---'Crushed poppy heads' recovered from accused persons---Chemical Examiner's report not clearly and legibly mentioning percentages of Meconnic Acid, Sulphuric Acid, Porphyroxin, Alkaloids, Morphine and Codeine in the sample---Gross negligence on part of Chemical Examiner [Minority view]---Accused persons applying for re-examination of sample by another Laboratory but subsequently abandoning such plea---Presumption that accused persons apprehended result of re-examination of sample adverse to them---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances. 2016 SCMR 621
S. 497(5)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic drugs---Application for cancellation of post arrest bail---Applicant was alien to the proceedings and allowing him to move an application for cancellation of bail would open a floodgate permitting every private individual to settle his personal scores with an accused booked in FIR bearing no direct nexus with that person---Allowing a private individual to move for cancellation of bail allowed to an accused wherein such person was neither a complainant, a witness nor directly aggrieved in any manner would be in complete negation of the mandate of Chapter XXXVIII of Cr.P.C. and it would certainly disturb the fiber of law and frustrate the object and scheme of prosecution---Without touching upon the merits of the case, High Court held that application was not maintainable on account of lack of locus standi which was dismissed accordingly. 2018 YLR 124 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that 1200-grams heroine was recovered from the accused during the course of investigation in another case---Prosecution produced complainant and recovery witness in order to prove the charge against the accused---Statements of said witnesses were coherent and confidence inspiring---Said witnesses had corroborated each other on all material points including date, time and place of occurrence, the quantity of recovered narcotics and the manner in which recovery was effected---Version of the said witnesses was vouched by the report of Forensic Science Agency---Circumstances established that accused was involved in the offence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. 2018 YLR 9 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss. 9(c) & 48---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Possession, import or export, trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotics---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Case property/recovered substances, safe custody of---Principles---Nothing was available on record to establish as to in whose presence the case property had been de-sealed and second sample (as directed by the court) obtained for sending the same to Chemical Examiner---Mere deposition of the prosecution witnesses was not sufficient to prove the safe custody of the case property---Prosecution had not produced the police official before the Trial Court, through whom said second sample of substance had been sent to the Chemical Examiner, which falsified the prosecution case---In absence of any concrete evidence that the recovered substance had been kept in safe custody or that samples had been taken from the recovered substance and transmitted to the office of Chemical Examiner without the same being tampered with or replaced during the transit, the prosecution case could not be said to have been proved---Report of Chemical Examiner did not carry any weight especially in absence of any evidence with regard to the safe custody of recovered substance and safe transmission of the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner---Trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of the doubt---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. 2017 P.Cr.L.J 349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss. 9, 36 & 48---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Report of Chemical Examiner---Application for fresh analysis of the contraband--- Dismissal of application---Appellant/accused, was found in possession of three cans, each containing twenty seven litres of Acetic Anhydrine, a contraband designated as psychotropic substance under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Trial was in progress, and evidence of recovery witnesses, had already been recorded; the Report of Chemical Examiner was before the court---Appellant, being dissatisfied with the report of Chemical Examiner, moved application for fresh analysis of the contraband for the purpose of determination of its chemical composition---Contention of appellant was that it would be in the interest of justice that the seized contraband be sent to any laboratory other than Punjab Forensic Science Agency---Validity---Prosecution of offences was a State attribute; State functionaries and institutions, were tasked to carry out the job; there was presumption of genuineness to such pursuits---Said powers could not be delegated to private enterprises chosen by a person confronting indictment---Any flaw or defect in the Forensic Report, could not be pressed into service for fresh analysis---Accused was not required to establish his innocence through such methodologies---Forensic analysis of the contraband, in the case, was undertaken soon after registration of the case; it was intriguing as to how the appellant became suspicious about the psychotropic character of the stuff attributed to him---Appellant having denied the charge, no onus was cast upon him within the contemplation of Art. 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to discharge any responsibility which could necessitate the proposed exercise---Appeal was dismissed . 2017 PCrLJ 1652 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss. 9(c), 47 & 48---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435 & 439---Possession of narcotic drugs---Criminal revision under Ss. 435/439, Cr.P.C.---Maintainability---Complainant assailed the vires of judgment passed by Special Court which on confessional statement of accused had convicted him under S. 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Section 47 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had made Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 applicable to trial and appeals before a Special Court---Section 48 of the Act contemplated an appeal to High Court against an order passed by a Special Court comprising Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge and in the present case, the Court was that of Sessions Judge thus Ss. 435 & 439, Cr.P.C. would be inconsistent to Ss. 47 & 48 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Order passed under the Act could not be assailed by invoking revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Criminal revision was dismissed being not maintainable. 2017 PCrLJ 1193 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
2014 PCrLJ 1649 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Preamble & S. 9---Intent and object of promulgation of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was to control the production, processing and trafficking of narcotics etc., and having been promulgated for that special purpose, its operative provisions should not be crushed on mere technicalities---In achieving the object of that Act, court should be vibrant and minor irregularities or discrepancies, must be overlooked.
2012 YLR 805 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESs. 9(c), 25 & 29---Smuggling of narcotics--- Appreciation ofevidence---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--- ---
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--- Appeals were dis-missed in circumstances.
2010 S C M R 27 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
--Approach ofCourt should be dynamic and pragmatic in approaching true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions while deciding such type ofcases---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………Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court---Leave to appeal was refused.
Mirza Shah's case 1992 SCMR 1475; Naseer Ahmed's case 2004 SCMR 1361; Riaz Ahmad's case 2004 SCMR 988; Muhammad Shah's case PLD 1984 SC 278; Said Shah's case PLD 1987 SC 288; Nadir Khan's case 1988 SCMR 1899; Rab Nawaz's case PLD 1994 SC 858; Ikram Hussain's case 2005 SCMR 1487; Munawar Hussain's case 1993 SCMR 785; Muhammad Arshad case 2007 SCMR 1378; Mst. Taj Bibi's case 2007 SCMR 1591 and Wajid Khan's case 2007 SCMR 1435 rel.
Section 21 violation
2009 SCMR 291 SUPREME-COURT
Accused was apprehended by police during normal patrol duty and no raid was carried out by the police personnel, and as such S.21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was not applicable---Even otherwise, policy party could not be expected to go in search of the officer entitled to arrest the accused being an A.S.-I., on hisapprehension---At the most this was an irregularity which was curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.---
Second ground weighing with High Court that the investigation was not carried out by an official authorized to do so, was also devoid of substance, as no prejudice had been caused to accused by such investigation and it was merely an irregularity curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.---Bail allowed to accused was cancelled in circumstances.
2009 SCMR 291 SUPREME-COURT
Ss. 21 & 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.537---Investigation by an unauthorized officer is anirregularity---Investigation carried out in the case by an officer not authorized to do so is merely an irregularity, which is curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.
2009 PLD 39 SUPREME-COURT
S. 9(c)---Certain minor lapses in investigation do not affect the validity of the trial. 2012 MLD 770 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ss. 9(c), 21 & 2(t), (v), (w)---Appreciation of evidence---Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was fully competent, in given circumstances, to conduct raid and seize the narcotics---Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory in nature, any violation thereof was not fatal to prosecution case…………………….Poppy straw and poppy heads included all parts of the poppy plant---"Phakki" (post) recovered from the accused was a narcotic substance as defined in Ss.2(t), 2(v) & 2(w) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Law did not require sending the whole narcotic substance to Chemical Examiner, only a small quantity thereof would be enough to prove that the entire recovered material was contraband…………………………….-Police Officials were as good witnesses as public witnesses, until and unless defence would establish some specific enmity or malice against them---Non-association of any witness from public, therefore, was not fatal to prosecution case---
Report of Chemical Examiner was positive---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances.
2012 YLR 794
Ss. 9(c), 20 & 21---Appreciation of evidence---Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. had categorically been excluded by S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Police Officials having no ill-will or personal grudge against the accused were competent witnesses---Police witnesses had furnished straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence---Hugequantity of "charas" could not be planted on accused by Police Officials from their own resources---Non-compliance of Ss.20 and 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in the peculiar circumstances of the case would not make the conviction of accused illegal---Narcotic was recovered not from a residential house but from a narcoticden---Spy information having been received after office hours, search warrants could not be obtained---Investigationof the case by CIA being an irregularity could not vitiate the whole trial entitling the accused to acquittal---Readerof Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of witnesses under his directions and notindependently---Tampering of the parcels of recovered narcotic having not been agitated, mere delay in sending the same for chemical analysis was not favourable to accused---Samples were drawn from 264 rods of "charas", each rod weighing ten grams, as such accused was found in possession of 2640 grams of "charas" and he had been rightly convicted and sentenced---
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2012 YLR 805 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
State Ss. 20, 21 & 22---Search and investigation---Provisions of Ss.20, 21 and 22 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, being directory in nature, non-compliance thereof would not make the trial or conviction bad in the eyes of law.
Samples 72 hours
2011 SCMR 624 SUPREME-COURT
Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 4 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal, refusal of---Destruction of case property under the orders of Sessions Court did not suffer from any illegality, as samples of narcotics had already been taken and duly exhibited at the trial---
Apprehension of accused and recovery of contraband "Charas" from the by carried by him, had been satisfactorily proved by the unaminous testimony of prosecution witnesses on all material aspects of the case qua place, time of arrest and recovery---No enmity, ill will or grudge was alleged against the prosecution witnesses by the accused for his false implication---Eleven kilograms of "Charas" could not be thrust upon the accused without any serious enmity---Rules 4 and 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, being directory and not mandatory , could not control the substantive provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and frustrate its purpose---Failure to follow the said rules would not render the search, seizure and arrest under the parent Act a nullity and would not make the entire case doubtful, except the consequences provided in the rules---Belated dispatch of incriminating articles for expert opinion could not be fatal in the absence of any objection regarding the same having been tampered with or manipulated---Impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, legal orfactual---Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly.
2015 PCrLJ 30 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SIND
S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account was submitted by three official s, and such account of the evidence had gone unshaken, despite said witnesses were subjected to the lengthy cross-examination---Entries appeared to have been produced to substantiate the movement of said official s, and report of chemical analyst had also been produced, which had established that the parcel sent to him was charas---Truck driven by one of accused persons, having been found to be loaded with contraband material, possession thereof could not be said that same was not to be with accused persons, who had been controlling the Truck---Not necessary that the driver should also be the owner of the vehicle, or that only owner of the vehicle was liable, and the driver could not be saddled with liability---Driver who was in actual possession of the vehicle and the material, was responsible; the owner of the truck could also be guilty in some cases, but not necessarily in every case---official s were also good witnesses like others, and their evidence could not be brushed aside merely for the reason of their being official s; they could be disbelieved, if they were shown to be inimical, and interested---No animosity was alleged against the witnesses ---In the absence of such motive, there was no reason to discard the testimony of the official s---Evidence having gone unshaken, mere delay in sending the sample could hardly be of any importance---Case against accused persons, having been proved, they were rightly convicted and sentenced.
2010 SCMR 27 SUPREME-COURT
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 SCMR 1962 SUPREME-COURT
Ss. 9(c) & 29---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Re- appraisal of evidence---Recovery of narcotics---official witnesses , evidence of---Charas weighing 20 kilograms was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Trial Court---
Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that no private witness was associated in recovery proceedings---Validity---Accused was apprehended at the spot from a vehicle on whose search 20 kilogram Charas was found for which F.I.R. was got lodged with promptitude and samples from recovered material were sent to Chemical Expert without any loss of time which were found "Charts" as a result of chemical examination---No enmity was alleged against prosecution witnesses and there was no possibility for false implication without having any ulterior motive which was never alleged---Defence version was rightly discarded which was denial simplciter and did not appeal to logic and reason---Reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases had become judicially recognized fact and there was no way out but to consider statement of official witness, as no legal bar or restriction had been imposed in such regard---Police official s were as good witnesses and could be relied upon, if their testimony remained un-shattered during cross examination---Provisions of S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had provided exclusion of S.103, Cr.P.C. during recovery proceedings---TrialCourt had appreciated the entire evidence and conclusion arrived at was affirmed by High Court which judgment was well based and did not warrant interference---Leave to appeal was refused.
2008 SCMR 1254 SUPREME-COURT
S. 9(c)---Reappraisal of evidence---Recovery of 11 kilograms of opium---Complainant as Investigating Officer---
No public witness---During search, 11 kilograms of opium was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for imprisonment for life, which was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that complainant himself was Investigating Officer and all prosecution witnesses were official s of Anti-Narcotic Force---Validity---Police Officer was not prohibited under the law to be a complainant, if he was a witness of an offence---Such officer could also be an Investigating Officer, so long as it did not prejudice accused person---Though Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses were employees of Anti- Narcotic Force, they had no animosity or rancor against accused to plant such a huge quantity of narcotic material upon him---Defence did not produce any such evidence to establish animosity qua prosecution witnesses ---All prosecution witnesses deposed in line to support prosecution case---Witness had passed the test of lengthy cross-examination but defence failed to extract any material contradiction fatal to prosecutioncase---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 report---Accused failed to point out any error of law in the judgment and the same was unexceptionable---Appeal was dismissed.
2014 PCrLJ 1649 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5---Possessing and trafficking ofnarcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Police Inspector who appeared as witness, almost had reiterated the story narrated by him in the complaint---Said witness gave minute details of the narcotics which were recovered from possession of accused---Witness was fully corroborated by other Police Official who was also a member of raidingparty---Contention of counsel for accused persons regarding violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., had no force, because S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had excluded the application of the said provision of Cr.P.C., from the cases of narcotics---Place of recovery was not a public place, but was a house; there was no possibility of any private person to witness the proceedings specially during the night when occurrence took place---Directions given in Rr.4 & 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, were directory in nature and not mandatory at all, coupled with the fact that the same did not override the main statute---Seventy-seven kilograms charas and13-1/2 kilograms opium were recovered from possession/at the behest of accused persons; and accused persons never contended that such a huge quantity of narcotics was not recovered from them---Samples, though were sent to the laboratory after 15 days of recovery of narcotics, but the defence could not prove that the samples were tampered with during that period---Delay in submission of samples to the laboratory, was not fatal to the prosecution case to initiate the conviction---Positive reports of the laboratory supported the prosecution case-- -Accused who was apprehended at the spot, disclosed that his brother/co-accused was also involved---Said co- accused was specifically nominated in the F.I.R.---Witnesses remained consistent with regard to place of recovery, recovery of narcotics and even the names of accused persons---Accused were not orious drug dealers having previous record---All said circumstances, fully involved accused persons with the commission of crime---No enmity, had been alleged against prosecution witnesses---No ground for false implication was alleged---Prosecution having successfully proved its case, and accused having rightly been convicted and sentenced, their appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Bhang
2009 YLR 1040 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : ASIF MEHMOOD
Side Opponent : State
S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Bail, grant of--"Post" weighing 1½ Kg. and "bhang " weighing 19 Kg. were allegedly recovered from the "Dawakhana" of accused---On quantitative test quantity of narcotic substance in `Post" was always detected meagre and on this score case against accused would definitely fall within the ambit of section 9 (b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997---Question as to whether "bhang " falls within the domain of the said Act or not was also a matter of further inquiry---Bail was allowed to accused in circumstance.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 3021 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI
Side Opponent : State
----Ss. 6, 9 & 2(d)---Prohibition (Enforce-ment of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.4---Application and scope---bhang /hemp, recovery of---When bhang /hemp is referred to without specification of any particular part of the cannabias plant and without the other details mentioned in S.2(d)(ii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act,
1997, the offence would be covered by the provisions of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979---
Recovery of bhang /hemp would attract the provisions of the control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, only when the requirements of S.2(d) thereof are fulfilled.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 3021 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI
Side Opponent : State
---S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/9 & 2(d)---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.4---Bail, grant of---F.I.R. memorandum of recovery and the Chemical Examiner's report did not specify as to whether the substance allegedly recovered from the possession of accused was the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant or not, as to whether the same excluded the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops or not and as to whether resin had been extracted from the recovered substance or not---Requirements of section 2(d) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, thus prima facie were not fulfilled so as to attract the provisions of the said Act---Allegation against the accused regarding recovery of "bhang " weighing 10 kilograms from her possession, fell within the scope of Article 4 of 'the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which carried a maximum sentence of two years' R.I.---Accused was a woman and nothing was to be recovered from her---Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2006 PCRLJ 1595 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.2(d)(ii) & 9(c)---Bail,- grant of---Furtherinquiry---Alleged material recovered from accused was sent to Chemical Examiner and according to the report, entire recovered material was "bhang " which was not hemp as defined in S.2(d.)(ii) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Such fact had brought case of accused within the ambit of furtherinquiry---Accused were behind the bars since long---Challan had been submitted in the Court, but there was no material progress in the trial---Detention of accused could not be allowed as in criminal jurisprudence there was no concept of punishment before conviction.
Citation Name : 2006 YLR 1111 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : FAIZULLAH
Side Opponent : State
--S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b)(c), 20 & 21---Bail, refusal of-Recovery of three plastic bags containing heroin, charas, bhang and opium weighing 30 grams, 600 grams, 800 grams and 50 gramsrespectively---Non- association of private witnesses in process of recovery though police had previous information of the case---Validity---Combined weight of such contraband was nearer the border line of S.9(b)
(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Witnesses for their non-cooperative attitude could not be associated in process of recovery of narcotics---Objection as to non-compliance of Ss.20 & 21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 could be raised at final stage of trial---Recovery of various items including 30 grants heroin, which was most dangerous specie of narcotics, confirmed that accused was having a retail outlet of all varieties of narcotics---Bail was refused to accused in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2003 YLR 1163 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : WAZIR
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----Ss.9(b)(c) & 51---Bail, grant of--Allegation against accused was that two Kgs. of Charas and five Kgs. of bhang were recovered from his possession---Case of accused fell under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which was punishable with death whereas from the possession of each of the remaining accused 1 Kg. of Charas was recovered---Case of said co-accused fell under S.9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was punishable with seven years- --Case of co accused being distinguishable from the case of accused, rule of consistency would not be applicable in the case ofaccused---Bail could not be granted to an accused under provisions of S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 where his offence was punishable with death---Punishment under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 being death, case of accused fell under prohibitory clause of S.51 of the saidAct--Accused in circumstances was not entitled for Concession of bail.
No cross examination
2014 PCrLJ 1663 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : RAZIA SULTANA
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 15---Possessing and trafficking narcotics and aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences---
Appreciation of evidence---Police constable and S.H.O., who were produced to prove the factum of recovery of huge quantity of narcotics, firmly supported the prosecution story, and they remained unshattered during cross -examination ---Defence failed to create any doubt, beneficial to it in any manner---AssistantSub-Inspector, also strengthened the prosecution case by supporting the fact of safe custody of sample parcels in the Malkhana, as well as safe transaction of the same to the office of Chemical Examiner in an intact condition; which stood further corroborated by the contents of report of Chemical Examiner---Defence could no t get any benefit, because prosecution witnesses corroborated each other on every material point connecting accused with the commission of offence, without any doubt---Recovery from the house of accused was effected, on her own pointation, who herself led the raiding party there---no plausible reason for planting such a huge quantity of narcotics against accused by the complainant had been given by thedefence---Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, was upheld, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2010 SCMR 1962 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : SALAH-UD-DIN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 29---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Re- appraisal of evidence---Recovery of narcotics---Official witnesses, evidence of---Charas weighing 20 kilograms was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Trial Court---
Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that no private witness was associated in recovery proceedings---Validity---Accused was apprehended at the spot from a vehicle on whose search 20 kilogram Charas was found for which F.I.R. was got lodged with promptitude and samples from recovered material were sent to Chemical Expert without any loss of time which were found "Charts" as a result of chemical examination ---no enmity was alleged against prosecution witnesses and there was no possibility for false implication without having any ulterior motive which was never alleged---Defence version was rightly discarded which was denial simplciter and did no t appeal to logic and reason---Reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases had become judicially recognized fact and there was no way out but to consider statement of official witness, as no legal bar or restriction had been imposed in such regard---Police officials were as good witnesses and could be relied upon, if their testimony remained un-shattered during cross examination ---Provisions of S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had provided exclusion of S.103, Cr.P.C. during recovery proceedings---TrialCourt had appreciated the entire evidence and conclusion arrived at was affirmed by High Court which judgment was well based and did no t warrant interference---Leave to appeal was refused.
Citation Name : 2008 SCMR 1254 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : ZAFAR
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)---Reappraisal of evidence---Recovery of 11 kilograms of opium---Complainant as Investigating Officer---
no public witness---During search, 11 kilograms of opium was recovered from accused and he was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for imprisonment for life, which was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that complainant himself was Investigating Officer and all prosecution witnesses were officials ofAnti-Narcotic Force---Validity---Police Officer was no t prohibited under the law to be a complainant, if he was a witness of an offence---Such officer could also be an Investigating Officer, so long as it did no t prejudice accused person---Though Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses were employees of Anti- Narcotic Force, they had no animosity or rancor against accused to plant such a huge quantity of narcotic material upon him---Defence did no t produce any such evidence to establish animosity qua prosecutionwitnesses---All prosecution witnesses deposed in line to support prosecution case---Witness had passed the test of lengthy cross -examination but defence failed to extract any material contradiction fatal to prosecutioncase---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 report---Accused failed to point out any error of law in the judgment and the same was unexceptionable---Appeal was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2007 SCMR 1671 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKRAM
Side Opponent : THE STATR
----Ss. 9(c) & 21---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Re-appraisal of evidence---Charas weighing 13Kgs---Raid and search by Assistant Sub-Inspector---Search warrant, dispensing with---On spy information, AssistantSub-Inspector conducted a raid and arrested accused red-handed, who was carrying 13 bags of Charas each weighing one kilogram---Ten grams from each bag was taken out for chemical examination ---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused for life imprisonment---Conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was maintained by HighCourt---Plea raised by accused was that under S.21 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, AssistantSub-Inspector was no t competent to make any raid---Validity---Requirement to obtain search warrant could be dispensed with in cases where a quick action was required to be taken and it would be
difficult to obtain search warrant where due to paucity of time apprehension of narcotics being removed or culprits having chance to escape were eminent---If Assistant Sub-Inspector had gone for obtaining search warrant, there was likelihood of accused having escaped away---Assistant Sub-Inspector was justified in conducting raid, search and seizure of huge quantity of narcotic without warrant---Prosecution proved the case against accused without any iota of doubt---Huge quantity of Charas was recovered from accused acid report of Chemical Examiner was also found in positive---Prosecution witnesses had deposed against accused and their testimonies remained unshattered despite lengthy cross -examination ---Accused failed to point out any misreading or no n-reading of evidence warranting interference by Supreme Court---Leave to appeal was refused.
Citation Name : 2011 PCrLJ 1342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : IQBAL SHAH
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c) & 25---Possessin g narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Examin ation of private persons was no t 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 no w 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 remain ed unshattered durin g cross -examin ation---
Recovery of "Charas" havin g no t been disputed, delay in sendin g the samples to Chemical Examin er without any suggestion of tamperin g with the same per se, would no t make the report of Chemical Examin erunreliable---Prosecution evidence with regard to the recovery of "Charas" from the accused in spired confidence and did no t suffer from any legal in firmity, material contradictions or dishonest improvements---
Prosecution witnesses had no enmity with the accused to in volve them in a false case---no mitigatin g circumstance was available to reduce the sentence of accused---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2011 YLR 1526 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
Side Opponent : State
S. 9(c)-Prohibition of possession, import or expert and traffickin g of narcotic drugs---Appreciation ofevidence-- Recovered charas weighin g 7.2 kgs., which was sealed at the time of arrest of accused and duly produced in the court was no t de-sealed durin g trial and was no t shown to the witnesses---no suggestion was made by " the counsel for accused durin g cross -examin ation that it was no t the same bag; or that the bag did no t contain the recovered charas---no evidence was available to the effect that the bag was no t sealed; and signatures of Excise official and masheers were no t present on the bag at the time of trial---nomaterial contradiction existed in the evidence of the witnesses; and there was no doubt created from mino r contradictions as to recovery and possession of the contraband/narcotics from accused---no doubt as to enmity or hostility existed between the Excise Police and accused to falsely implicate. him by foistin g such huge amount of charas upon' him; in a bus full of passengers---Counsel for accused had also failed to point out any irregularity or impropriety
No comments:
Post a Comment