Murder cases

Murder cases

S. 302(b)---International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 6---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal

of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Motive not proved---Recovery of crime weapon inconsequential--
-Quantum of sentence may be reduced from death penalty to imprisonment for life if the prosecution
fails to establish motive---This principle is in conformity with Article 6 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)---In the absence of premeditation to commit murder where motive is
not proved by the prosecution, the same may be considered as a mitigating factor in order to reduce the
quantum of sentence in cases involving capital punishment---In the present case the High Court had
correctly concluded that the motive was not proved by the prosecution and the recovery of the crime
weapon was inconsequential---As such the respondent (convict) was entitled to the benefit of reduction
of sentence and the High Court rightly altered his death sentence to imprisonment for life---Petition for
leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. : 2024 SCMR 128

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 364-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-
amd, kidnapping or abducting a minor---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Investigation carried out
incompetently---Counsel for the petitioner (accused) stated that it was reported to the police on 5
August 2022 that deceased minor aged about 9/10 years was missing, and on 8 August 2022 after the
recovery of his body the FIR was registered wherein the petitioner was nominated, however, he was not
mentioned when it was first reported to the police that minor was missing; that statements under
section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ('the Code') of two relatives of the deceased were
recorded which stated that they had last seen the minor with the petitioner, but this did not stand to
reason because they would have not permitted a young boy to be taken with an adult and not have
informed the boy's father---Validity---Investigation of the case showed that the police report (challan)
had only relied upon the two statements of relatives of the deceased---It was most unfortunate that a
young boy died but proper investigation did not take place to ascertain what had happened let alone
who was responsible---Present case was a classic example of an incompetently handled investigation---
Case of further enquiry was made out - Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and
allowed, and petitioner was admitted to bail. PLD 2024 SC 73

. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 302, 34, 118, 120-B, 109 & 506---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.
185(3)---Murderous assault---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---After registration of FIR, the complainant
recorded four supplementary statements---In the first three supplementary statements, the
complainant did not nominate the petitioner as an accused---However in her fourth supplementary
statement, recorded after a lapse of more than four months of the occurrence, she did nominate the
petitioner for the first time---Bare look of the crime report and the subsequent four supplementary
statements recorded by the complainant shows that she kept changing her stance---It appears there is
no direct evidence against the petitioner and the prosecution case hinges upon circumstantial evidence-
--Petitioner is behind bars for the last more than 20 months---Case of the petitioner squarely falls within
the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt---Petition for leave to
appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and petitioner was admitted to bail. 2024 SCMR 205

-According to the witnesses, the accused fired at the deceased from a distance of 3/4 karams but the
medical record shows that there was blackening and charring around the wounds, which suggested that
the injuries were caused from a close range, which further negated the ocular account---There were
only two eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who admittedly, had been disbelieved to the extent of the
acquitted co-accused, who was alleged to have played a similar role in the occurrence, then the same
evidence could not be relied upon to convict the accused on capital punishment unless there was an
independent corroboration and some strong incriminating evidence to the extent of his involvement in
commission of the offence but the same was lacking in the instant case---Recovery of weapon from the
accused was inconsequential because admittedly no crime empty was collected from the place of
occurrence---Motive had also rightly been disbelieved by the High Court by holding that it was a vaguely
formulated motive and no evidence in support of the same has been placed on record---Petition for
leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge by
extending him the benefit of doubt. 2024 SCMR 156

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 302, 34, 118, 120-B, 109 & 506---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.
185(3)---Murderous assault---Bail, grant of---Call Data Record (CDR)---So far as the Call Data Record
(CDR) is concerned, in absence of any concrete material the CDR is not a conclusive piece of evidence to
ascertain the guilt or otherwise of an accused---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal
and allowed and petitioner was admitted to bail. 2024 SCMR 205

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah---Reappraisal of evidence---
Petition seeking enhancement of sentence, dismissal of---Inconsequential recovery---High Court through
the impugned judgment has rightly termed the recovery as inconsequential keeping in view the fact that
crime empties secured from the place of occurrence were dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory
after arrest of the petitioner/convict---Judgment passed by the High Court, whereby it reduced the
death sentence awarded to petitioner/convict into imprisonment for life, is well reasoned and based on
proper appreciation of evidence available on the record---Petition filed by the complainant for
enhancement of sentence was dismissed and leave was refused. 2024 SCMR 67

---Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not show the place of incident in the site plan through the
prosecution claimed that the incident occurred near a hotel; I.O. also admitted that he had not
demarcated the place from where the accused had fired at the victim in the rough site plan, nor had the
prosecution witnesses shown him the specific place of death of the deceased at the site of the
occurrence; I.O. further admitted that he had called upon the inhabitants of the place of occurrence i.e.
owners of the nearby haveli and service station, but they could not provide any detail of the occurrence
or any description of the assailants---As per the prosecution case, the deceased sustained two firearm
injuries, however the postmortem report revealed that only one firearm injury was found on the
deceased's body---High Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to substantiate the case against the
respondent---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. 2024 SCMR 51

302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Witnesses of the ocular account related to the deceased---Mere relationship of

the prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such
witnesses. S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Minor discrepancies--- As long as the material aspects of the
evidence have a ring of truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in the evidence---Test is whether
the evidence of a witness inspires confidence---If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the
matter, the defence can take advantage of the same---While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth---Minor
discrepancies on trivial matters not affecting the material considerations of the prosecution case ought
not to prompt the courts to reject evidence in its entirety --- Such minor discrepancies which do not
shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored.2023 SCMR 117

S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Petition for leave to appeal challenging acquittal of accused---Reappraisal of

evidence---Name of the accused was not mentioned in the crime report, and his name was brought in
through a private complaint, which was lodged after a lapse of three months wherein his name was
mentioned for the first time---Statement of one of the witnesses of the ocular account recorded under
section 161, Cr.P.C. also did not disclose the name of the accused---Alleged confessional statement on
the part of all the accused was of no avail as the same was made jointly, which had no legal sanctity---
Even otherwise, the same was inadmissible in evidence---High Court while adjudicating the matter and
taking into consideration all the material placed on the record gave a finding of acquittal in favour of
accused, which seemed to be well reasoned and the same did not invite any interference on judicial
premises---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.2023 SCMR 190

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Minor discrepancies in ocular account and medical evidence---Not significant---

Casual discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical evidence and the ocular version are quite
possible for variety of reasons---During occurrence when live shots are being fired, witnesses in a
momentary glance make only tentative assessment of the distance between the deceased and the
assailant and the points where such fire shots appeared to have landed and it becomes highly
improbable to correctly mention the location of the fire shots with exactitude---Minor discrepancies, if
any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not negate the direct evidence as witnesses are
not supposed to give photo picture of ocular account---Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account with
medical evidence being not material and not imprinting any dent in prosecution version would have no
adverse effect on prosecution case. 2023 SCMR 478
--When the accused had taken a specific stance and in support of the same had placed on record the
relevant documents, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the statement of the
accused under section 342, Cr.P.C.---Except for his oral assertion the complainant did not produce any
independent evidence to substantiate the motive part of the prosecution story, therefore the
prosecution had failed to prove motive---So far as recovery of blood stained hatchet was concerned, the
same was allegedly recovered on the pointation of accused from a thoroughfare, which was easily
accessible to everyone, therefore, the same was inconsequential---Facts and circumstances of the
present case were sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case, which entitled the
accused to the right of benefit of the doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the
charge. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---2023 SCMR 566

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Heinous offence---Mere heinousness of the offence, if not proved to the hilt, is

not a ground to punish an accused.2023 SCMR 566

--Both witnesses remained consistent on each and every material point inasmuch as they made
deposition according to the circumstances that surfaced in the case, therefore, it could safely be
concluded that the ocular account furnished by the prosecution was reliable, straightforward and
confidence inspiring---Medical evidence available on the record further corroborated the ocular account
so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injuries on the person of the deceased was
concerned---Counsel for the accused could not paint out any plausible reason as to why the complainant
had falsely involved the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed
murder of his real brother---Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon---According to the
report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the crime empties matched with the weapon recovered from
the accused---In these circumstances, there was sufficient material available on record to sustain
conviction of the accused---Conviction of accused under section 302(b), P.P.C was maintained---Appeal
was partly allowed.2023 SCMR 596

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Related witness, evidence of---Scope---Related witness cannot be termed as an

interested witness under all circumstances---Related witness can also be a natural witness---If an
offence is committed within the presence of the family members then they assume the position of
natural witnesses---In case, their evidence is reliable, cogent and clear, the prosecution case cannot be
doubted---However, a related witness would become an interested witness when his evidence is tainted
with malice and it shows that he is desirous of implicating the accused by fabricating and concocting
evidence---Evidence of an eyewitness who is a near relative of the victim should be closely scrutinized by
the Court. 2023 SCMR 1375

Ss. 34, 148, 149, 302(a), 302(b) & 302(c)---Qatl-i-amd---Multiple assailants---Common intention or
common object---Duty of court to ascertain the aspect of common intention or common object at the
time of framing of charge and sentencing of accused persons stated. 2023 SCMR 750
302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Heinousness of offence---Mere heinousness of the offence if not proved to the hilt
is not a ground to punish an accused. For the accused to be afforded the right of the benefit of the
doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is
only one doubt, the benefit of the same must go to the accused.2023 SCMR 670

302(b), 324 & 337-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah---Medical evidence---Recovery

evidence---Conviction---Value and status of medical evidence and recovery is always corroborative in its
nature, which alone is not sufficient to sustain conviction.2023 SCMR 723

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Related witness, evidence of---Scope---Related witness cannot be termed as an

interested witness under all circumstances---Related witness can also be a natural witness---If an
offence is committed within the presence of the family members then they assume the position of
natural witnesses---In case, their evidence is reliable, cogent and clear, the prosecution case cannot be
doubted---However, a related witness would become an interested witness when his evidence is tainted
with malice and it shows that he is desirous of implicating the accused by fabricating and concocting
evidence---Evidence of an eyewitness who is a near relative of the victim should be closely scrutinized by
the Court. 2023 SCMR 1375

--Contents of FIR, statement of prosecution witnesses of ocular account were corroborated by the
medical evidence---Accused was apprehended at the spot by the police officials soon after the
occurrence leaving no ambiguity qua his involvement in the crime---Weapon of offence recovered from
the accused was transmitted to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory without any delay in its
dispatch---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory further confirmed that the empties recovered from the
spot matched with the weapon recovered from the accused---Appeal against conviction was
dismissed.2023 SCMR 2016

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah---Medical evidence---
Discrepancies---Minor discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not
negate the direct evidence as witnesses are not supposed to give photo picture of ocular account. 2023
SCMR 723

---Present crime report was lodged after an inordinate delay of two days for which not a single word
had been put forward by the complainant---Delayed registration of FIR prima facie showed deliberations
and consultation on the part of the complainant---Trial Court after recording of evidence would decide
about the guilt or otherwise of the accused and as to whether section 324, P.P.C. was applicable or not--
-Accused was behind bars for the last more than five months and merely on the basis of bald allegations,
the liberty of a person could not be curtailed---Accused had made out a case for bail as his case squarely
fell within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt---Petition for
leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to bail.2023 SCMR
857

S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Ocular evidence--- Medical evidence---Minor discrepancies---Such

discrepancies, if any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not negate the direct evidence
as witnesses are not supposed to give photo picture of ocular account---Even otherwise, conflict of
ocular account with medical evidence being not material, and not imprinting any dent in prosecution
version, would have no adverse affect on prosecution case.2023 SCMR 900

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Ocular account provided by a witness---"Contradiction" and "minor

discrepancies"---Distinction and effect---Contradiction in the statement of a witness is fatal for the
prosecution case whereas minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution case
doubtful---Normal course of human conduct is that while narrating a particular incident there may occur
minor discrepancies---Parrot-like statements are always discredited by the courts---In order to ascertain
as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounts to contradiction,
regard is required to be made to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of
the witnesses and environment in which such witnesses were making the statement---Normal
discrepancies are always present, howsoever, honest and truthful a witness may be---Such discrepancies
are due to normal errors of observation, memory due to lapse of time and mental disposition such as
shock and horror at the time of occurrence---Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and
not expected of a normal person.2023 SCMR 831

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Minor discrepancies in ocular account and medical evidence---Not significant---

Casual discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical evidence and the ocular version are quite
possible for variety of reasons---During occurrence when live shots are being fired, witnesses in a
momentary glance make only tentative assessment of the distance between the deceased and the
assailant and the points where such fire shots appeared to have landed and it becomes highly
improbable to correctly mention the location of the fire shots with exactitude---Minor discrepancies, if
any, in medical evidence relating to nature of injuries do not negate the direct evidence as witnesses are
not supposed to give photo picture of ocular account---Even otherwise, conflict of ocular account with
medical evidence being not material and not imprinting any dent in prosecution version would have no
adverse effect on prosecution case.: 2023 SCMR 478

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah---Ocular account---
Preference over medical evidence---Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence
inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain
conviction of an accused. 2023 SCMR 723
S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Confessional video of accused---Evidentiary value---Such kind of alleged
confessionary video is not beneficial to the complainant/prosecution unless it is properly produced
before the court of law, its genuineness is established and then the same is proved in accordance with
law for it to be treated as evidence in the case---With the advancement of science and technology, it is
now possible to get a forensic examination, audit or test conducted through an appropriate laboratory
so as to ascertain as to whether an audio tape or a video is genuine or not. 2022 SCMR 1954

S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Benefit of doubt--- Scope--- Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a
prudent mind about the guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and
concession but as a matter of right.2022 SCMR 1540

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Minor discrepancies in prosecution case---While appreciating the evidence, the

court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies---Such minor discrepancies which do
not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored--- Accused cannot claim
premium of such minor discrepancies---If importance is given to such insignificant inconsistencies then
there would hardly be any conviction.2022 SCMR 1931

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy

cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the accused or adverse to the prosecution
could be produced on record---Ocular account furnished by the prosecution was reliable,
straightforward and confidence inspiring---Medical evidence available on the record corroborated the
ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injury on the person of the deceased
was concerned---Counsel for the accused could not point out any reason as to why the complainant
would falsely involve the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed
murder of his real son---Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon---So far as the delay of
about 2 hours 45 minutes in lodging the FIR was concerned, the complainant in his cross-examination
had reasonably explained such delay---Parties were known to each other and no question of mistaken
identity arose---Even otherwise, the prosecution witnesses of ocular account had clearly mentioned that
a tube-light was glowing at the main gate in front of which the occurrence took place---Source of light
was also established from the rough site plan as well as scaled site plan, which was essential part of the
prosecution case---After the occurrence, the accused also remained absconder for about six months,
which was also a corroboratory piece of evidence against him---Sufficient evidence was available to
sustain the conviction of the accused---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was
refused.2022 SCMR 1931

---So far as the recovery of weapon of offence was concerned, admittedly no empty was recovered from
the place of occurrence, which could be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, therefore, the
recovery was inconsequential---High Court had rightly taken a lenient view and converted the sentence
of death into imprisonment for life---No further leniency could be shown to the accused---Petition for
leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.2022 SCMR 1931
S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Any doubt arising in the prosecution case is to be
resolved in favour of the defence---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind
about the guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and concession
but as a matter of right. 2022 SCMR 1328

Question of common intention under section 34, P.P.C. could best be examined during the trial after
recording of the evidence---To the extent of the accused the reappeared to be no reasonable grounds
for believing that he had committed the non-bailable offence, but there were sufficient grounds for
further inquiry into his guilt---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and
accused was admitted to bail. 2022 SCMR 1328

S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Benefit of doubt--- Scope--- Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a
prudent mind about the guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and
concession but as a matter of right.: 2022 SCMR 1567

S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Quantum of sentence--- Motive not established---Effect---Absence of motive or

absence of proof of the same would be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to determine the quantum
of sentence.2022 SCMR 1608

S. 497---Juvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018), Ss. 6(3) & 6(4)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302,
324, 212 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd---Bail, grant of---Juvenile of 'more than
sixteen years of age'---Connotation---In the present case the accused was 'exactly' sixteen years of age
on the date the offence was committed, and was not 'more than sixteen years of age'---Such fine
distinction had to be kept in mind when considering application of section 6(3) and section 6(4) of the
Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 ('the 2018 Act')---Since the accused on the date of commission of the
offence was exactly sixteen years of age, and not more than sixteen years of age, therefore, applicable
provision of the 2018 Act would be section 6(3), which provides that the accused has to be considered
as if 'he was accused of commission of a bailable offence'---Petition for leave to appeal was converted
into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to bail.2022 SCMR 1806

--Medical evidence available on the record corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time
and impact of the injury on the person of the deceased was concerned---Counsel for the accused could
not point out any plausible reason as to why the complainant would falsely involve the accused in the
present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed murder of his real brother---Substitution in
such like cases was a rare phenomenon---According to the report of the Forensic Science Labo-ratory,
the crime empty was found fired from the pistol recovered from the accused---Conviction of accused
under section 302(b), P.P.C. was maintained---Appeal was dismissed. 2022 SCMR 1882
Case Laws on Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Prosecution case was that 7200 grams opium in six packets was recovered from the vehicle driven by
accused---Record showed that the reports submitted by Testing Laboratory was legally laconic---
Deposition of complainant reflected that he had not handed over the sample parcels to the Moharrar in
the Police Station for keeping the same in safe custody rather retained the same with him till its
transmission in the office of Testing Laboratory---In the testimony of Moharrar, he acknowledged the
receiving of sample parcels along with the case property from the complainant and its entrustment to
Constable for its transmission to the office of Testing Laboratory for analysis---Both the complainant and
Moharrar alleged that they had sent the sample parcels to the office of Testing Laboratory but the
reports of laboratory totally spoke otherwise that the samples were received in the said office "By
Hand"---Reports did not bear name of any person, who submitted the sample parcels in the said office---
Safe custody and as well as transmission of sample parcels from the place of occurrence to the Police
Station and office of Testing Laboratory was missing, in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was
accordingly allowed.PCrLJ 2024 Lahore 385

S. 9---Possession of narcotic---Testimonies of the police personnel---Such testimonies are required to be

treated in the same manner as the testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that
without corroboration from independent witnesses, their testimonies cannot be relied upon---
Presumption that a person acts honestly applies, as much in favour of police personnel as of other
persons and it is not proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. ---
(Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 ('the Rules of 2001')---Possession of narcotic---Rules of 2001 are
stricto sensu directory and not mandatory in any manner---It does not spell as to whether in case of any
lapse, they would automatically become instrumental to discard the whole prosecution case. ---
Prosecution witnesses of recovery remained firm on each and every material particular of the
prosecution story and their testimony could not be shaken---Safe chain of custody of the recovered
narcotics was not compromised at all---Appeal against conviction was dismissed. 2023 SCMR 1669 (Zain
Ali vs State)

S. 9(c)--- Possession of narcotic --- Safe custody and transmission of sample parcels to the office of
Chemical Examiner not established---In cases under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances
Act, 1997, it is duty of the prosecution to establish each and every step from the stage of recovery,
making of sample parcels, safe custody of sample parcels and safe transmission of the sample parcels to
the concerned laboratory---Such chain has to be established by the prosecution and if any link is missing
in such like offences the benefit must be extended to the accused---In a case containing the said defect
on the part of the prosecution it cannot be held with any degree of certainty that the prosecution had
succeeded in establishing its case against an accused person beyond any reasonable doubt. 2023 SCMR
139 JAVED IQBAL vs State

---Police constable, who allegedly took the sample parcels to the concerned laboratory was also not
produced---In such eventuality, prosecution failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the
sample parcels to the concerned quarter and the prosecution could not give any plausible explanation
for not producing said important witnesses---Said defect in the prosecution case went into the root of
the case creating serious doubt regarding the narcotics and its recovery---Petitions for leave to appeal
were converted into appeals and allowed, and while extending benefit of doubt to them, the accused
persons were acquitted of the charge. 2022 SCMR 1006 MUHAMMAD SHOAIB vs State

Ss. 2(t)(iii) & 9(c)--- Possession and transportation of 1650 kilograms of poppy straw----Perusal of section
2(t)(iii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, showed that 'poast' in the mixture form would
only be considered a narcotics substance within the meaning of the Act if the same contained 0.2
percent of morphine---However, the report of the Chemical Examiner reveals no such percentage -
Report of the Chemical Examiner, left no doubt that the recovered poast from the possession of the
accused was in grinded/mixed shape, therefore, the report of the Chemical Examiner ought to have
mentioned the percentage of morphine in the whole mixture---Record also did not show as to whether
from the 1650 kilograms of poast, which was in the shape of whole poppy plants, how much quantity
was the sack/pouch/doda as it is only the sack/pouch/doda which contained narcotic substance---
Therefore, in absence of such report, it was difficult to determine as to whether the case against the
accused fell within the purview of section 9(a), 9(b) or 9(c) of the Act---In circumstances, conviction of
accused was maintained, however his sentence of imprisonment for life was reduced to that already
undergone---Appeal was partly allowed. 2022 SCMR 1375 ZAFAR IQBAL vs State

Forensic report regarding narcotics was strictly in accordance with the principles laid down for such
purpose by the Supreme Court---Accused in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. alleged
false implication and mala fide but record of the case would show that he could not explain and
establish the same---No reason or factum of malice was found on record for implicating the accused
falsely or with any mala fide---Recovery of narcotics was proved by a police official and the said recovery
was also testified by another police official---Non-production of other recovery witness/police official
had no bearing on the merits of the case---Appeal was dismissed, and conviction and sentence awarded
to accused under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was maintained. 2022
SCMR 1784 NAVEED AKHTAR vs State

---Safe transmission of samples to office of Chemical Examiner not established---Heinousness of the

charge and huge quantity of the alleged contraband, notwithstanding, the prosecution was under a
bounden responsibility to drive home the charge by proving each limb of its case that essentially
included production of the witness, tasked with the responsibility of transmitting the samples to the
office of Chemical Examiner---Failure of the prosecution in such regard cast away the entire case---
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed; the impugned judgment was set
aside; and accused was acquitted of the charge. 2022 SCMR 819 ABDUL GHAFOOR vs The STATE

In the cases of narcotic substances, recovery memo is a basic document, which should be prepared by
the Seizing Officer, at the time of the recovered articles, containing a list thereof, in presence of two or
more respectable witnesses and memo has to be signed by such witnesses---Main object of preparing
the recovery memo at the spot and with signatures of the witnesses is to ensure that the recovery is
effected in presence of the marginal witnesses, honestly and fairly, so as to exclude the possibility of
false implication and fabrication---Once the recovery memo is prepared, the next step for the
prosecution is to produce the same before the Trial Court, to prove the recovery of the material and
preparation of the memo through the scribe and the marginal witnesses. 2022 SCMR 864 ZAFAR
KHAN vs : State

Safe custody and safe transmission of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Significance---
Representative samples of the alleged drug must be kept in safe custody and undergo safe transmission
from the stage of recovery till its submission to the office of the Government analyst---Non-establishing
the said facts would cast doubt and would impair and vitiate the conclusions and reliability of the report
of the Government analyst, thus rendering it incapable of sustaining conviction2022 SCMR 1641
QAISER vs State

---No reason or factum of malice was found on record for implicating the accused falsely or with any
mala fide---Recovery of narcotics was proved by a police official and the said recovery was also testified
by another police official---Non-production of other recovery witness/police official had no bearing on
the merits of the case---Appeal was dismissed, and conviction and sentence awarded to accused under
section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was maintained. 2022 SCMR 1784
NAVEED AKHTAR vs State

Safe custody of sample parcels was not established by the prosecution---Police constable, who allegedly
took the sample parcels to the concerned laboratory was also not produced---In such eventuality,
prosecution failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the sample parcels to the
concerned quarter and the prosecution could not give any plausible explanation for not producing said
important witnesses---Said defect in the prosecution case went into the root of the case creating serious
doubt regarding the narcotics and its recovery---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into
appeals and allowed, and while extending benefit of doubt to them, the accused persons were acquitted
of the charge. 2022 SCMR 1006 MUHAMMAD SHOAIB vs State

---Neither the safe custody nor the safe transmission of the sealed sample parcels to the concerned
laboratory was established by the prosecution because neither the Moharrar nor the Constable
concerned who deposited the said parcels in the concerned laboratory was produced---Sample parcels
were received in the forensic laboratory three days after the recovery of narcotics and prosecution was
silent as to where these sample parcels remained during this period, meaning thereby that the element
of tampering was quite apparent in the present case---Appeal was allowed, and accused was acquitted
of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt. 2022 SCMR 1422 ISHAQ vs State
S. 9(c)---Narcotic cases---Testimony of police officials, reliance upon---Scope---Testimony of police
officials is as good as any other private witness unless it is proved that they have animus against the
accused---Reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases has become judicially
recognized fact and there is no impediment to consider statement of official witnesses, as no legal bar
or restriction has been imposed in such regard---Police officials are as good witnesses and can be relied
upon, if their testimonies remain un-shattered during cross-examination. 2022 SCMR 905 FAISAL
SHAHZAD vs State

S. 9---Possession of narcotics---Testimony of police officials---Such testimony was as good as any other

private witness unless it was proved that the police officials had animus against the accused. 2022
SCMR 317 (Ajab Khan vs State)

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 57

Held, 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 poin t out any irregularity or impropriety as to weight of charas,
takin g samples from the eight patties, sendin g the same to the Chemical Examin er and fin din gs of the
Chemical Examin er---Prosecution case could no t be dismissed on the ground that the in vestigation was
conducted by the complain ant as no separate win g of "in vestigation" existed in the Excise
Department---in vestigatin g Officer was no t alleged to be motivated again st accused and there was no
allegation that accused was prejudiced due to his action--Prosecution had proved its case again st
accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Counsel for accused had failed to poin t' out any error of law or
misreadin g of evidence in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court---no case had been made out by
accused whereby appeal could be allowed or sentence awarded by the Trial Court could bereduced---
Appeal was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2010 PCrLJ 900 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : Mst. RASHIDA BIBI

Side Opponent : State

S.9(c)---Possession of Narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Police officer could legally act as a complain

ant as well as an in vestigatin g Officer, unless the accused was prejudiced by such action---no such
objection had been raised durin g the trial, no r the same had been put to the relevant police officer
even as a suggestion in his cross -examin ation---Application of section 103, Cr.P.C. havin g been
excluded by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, objection about no n-association
of any private witness in the recovery proceedin gs, had no substance---Complain ant police officer was
a witness to the recovery of "Charas" weighin g six kilograms from the accused---Report of Chemical
Examin er was in positive---Conviction and sentence of accused were main tain ed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2006 PCRLJ 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MIR ZAMAN

Side Opponent : State

---S. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---Reduction in sentence---Complain ant though should no t himself

be an in vestigatin g Officer of the case, but until and unless a serious prejudice had been caused to
accused by double role of in vestigatin g Officer, his in vestigation could no t be said to be illegal no r
same could be brushed aside- --Accused,had failed to poin t out any ill-will or motive on part of in
vestigatin g Officer to falsely in volve him in the case---Evenslightest suggestion was no t put to in
vestigatin g Officer durin g cross -examin ation in that regard---Testimony of said in vestigatin g Officer
could no t be said to be based on mala fide---no enmity or motive could be suggested to other
prosecution witness who had made statement that Charas was recovered in his presence from
possession of accused and he had attested recovery memo--Both prosecution witnesses were subjected
to lengthy cross -examin ation, but no material discrepancy or contradiction could be poin ted out by
accused to discard their testimony---Statement of defence witness with regard to in no cence of accused
appeared to be an afterthought and possibility that a false story had been made up to create defence of
accused, could no t be ruled out---Prayer of accused that punishment awarded to him be reduced to
that of already undergone, could no t be said to be unreasonable---Main tain in g conviction of accused
sentence of imprisonment already undergone was considered to be sufficient to meet the ends of
justice.

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2801 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAEEM

SHAH

Side Opponent : State

----. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence--- Defence despite lengthy and searchin g cross -examin ation, had
failed to shatter the credibility of the recovery witnesses who belonged to police department---no thin g
was brought on the record to show that the recovery witnesses had any malice or grouse again st the
accused to falsely implicate him in the case---Occurrence havin g taken place in the early hours of the
day, raidin g parry could no t possibly obtain search warrants from the Magistrate and apprehendin g
escape of the accused it could enter the place without obtain in g search warrants in view of the
provisions of Ss.47 & 48, Cr. P. C.---Difference in the date for the deposit of the sample in the office of
the Chemical Examin er was of no help to accused, because durin g cross -examin ation no suggestion
was put to the concerned witness or to the in vestigatin g Officer that the packet of the sample was
tampered with---Evidence of all the recovery witness which was supported by the Chemical Examin er's
report in spired confidence---Conviction of accused was consequently upheld---Accused did no t have
the no toriety as a drug pusher---Criterion for awardin g sentence under the law was the quantity of
narcotics recovered from the accused---Possibility that the quantity of narcotics was less than ten
kilograms, could no t be ruled out, as the evidence on record did no t show that the said weight did no t
in clude the weight of the material of the packets in which the heroin waspacked---Out of test kilogram
only one gram of heroin was sent to Chemical Examin er for examination---Death sentence of accused
was reduced to imprisonment for life in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2003 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : SHAUKAT ALI alias BILLA

Side Opponent : State

---S. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence--in spector Anti-Narcotic Force prepared a report on basis of which
formal F.I.R. was drawn and he made detailed statement in accordance with the said report---in spector
had been fully supported by other prosecution witness---in spector, in his cross -examin ation had
disclosed that he had recorded first version of accused at the spot and he denied the suggestion that
accused had pleaded that he had purchased two din ner sets through the in former who in stead of
deliverin g the din ner sets had placed narcotic substance in his house---Same plea had been partly
taken up by accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., but he did no t produce any evidence in
support of his plea---Accused did no t even pick up the courage to appear as a witness in disproof of
charge---Prosecution witness was no t even suggested any motive for implicatin g accused falsely---in
spector had stated that he had attempted to associate residents of locality durin g the raid, but they had
declin ed--Anti-Narcotic Force could no t be expected to have planted false recovery of a huge quantity
of narcotic substance again st accused---Mere fact that no search warrant was obtain ed before
conductin g raid, would no t render recovery as illegal---Evidence furnished by prosecution witnesses in
spired full confidence---Report of Chemical Examin er had shown that substance recovered from the
possession of accused was Charas---Case again st accused, in circumstances, stood proved beyond
reasonable doubt and there was no reason to take any exception---in view of huge quantity of Charas
recovered from the possession of accused, there was no reason to take lenient view---Appeal again st
conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was dismissed.

Joint Recovery

Citation Name : 2011 YLR 2318 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : MUNAWAR BIBI

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of accused persons

at the place of occurrence and recovery of a huge quantity of narcotic substance "poast" was not
denied---Said substance was found lying on a road side near the Bus Stop and accused persons were
waiting for transporting the same, such could not be considered as a joint recovery to circumstances---
Such was a case of joint possession and joint ownership---SPYinformation had indicated the female
accused; and there being no ill-will or motive on the part of the Police to falsely implicate accused
person in the case, there was no weight in the argument of counsel for accused that Police had
substituted accused persons with the real culprit, had been let off by the Police--All the prosecution
evidence, no doubt consisted of Police witnesses, but their testimony was considered as good as public
witnesses; andnon-application of S.103, Cr.P.C. in the case had got no implication; as S.25 of Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had excluded its application---All prosecution witnesses remained.
consistent in their depositions and the defence was unable to shake their testimony during the cross-
examination---No allegation of personal grudge or animosity was found against the prosecution
witnesses to falsely implicate accused in the case---Head Constable, in his examination-in-chief deposed
about delivery of samples of recovered narcotic substance to the office of the Chemical Examiner---Said
prosecution witness was not cross-examined despite an opportunity wasprovided---Question of delay of
9 days in sending the samples of narcotic substance or substitution of the recovered material with some
other material containing intoxicant, had become irrelevant---Huge quantity of 180 Kg. of "poast" having
been recovered from accused persons by the Police, did not seem to be plausible---Though during the
investigation, 8 persons appeared before the Investigating Officers in support of the defence version of
accused, but none of said persons appeared before the court during the trial---None of said 8 persons
being present at the place of occurrence, their statements were irrelevant for the purpose of
determination of guilt or innocence ofaccused---Accused was found present at the place of occurrence
in the company of co-accused at the time of raid, she was unable to prove that she was not associated
with the co-accused---Prosecution had proved that said accused was associated with the co- accused---
Co-accused was found in joint possession of the narcotic substance and was guilty of commission of
offence falling under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in circumstances---
Accusedladies had failed to make out a case of their acquittal---Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly
convicted and sentenced accused persons and impugned judgment of the Trial Court did not call for
interference by High Court.

Citation Name : 2011 PCrLJ 398 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : INAYATULLAH

Side Opponent : 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 proceesding 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.

Citation Name : 2015 PCrLJ 150 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : Mst. SADIA BIBI case

S. 426—suspension ---High Court did not find it appropriate to have deeper appreciation at such stage---

Accused was convicted under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after regular trial and
Trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt---High
Court declined to suspend the sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court--- Petition was dismissed in
circumstances.

Citation Name : 2015 SCMR 133 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : The STATE/ANF

Side Opponent : ALEEM HAIDER

S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Possession

ofnarcotic---Bail, cancellation of---Statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C. fully
implicating theaccused---Effect---Anti-Narcotics Force found 202 kilograms of heroin from a container
which contained an exportconsignment---Huge quantity of heroin was recovered---Accused was the
main exporter of the consignment---Recordshowed that accused contacted the freight forwarder for
export, who in turn hired the services of a clearingagent---Accused had obtained possession of a
godown for packing the consignment, which fact was confirmed by the manager of the godown to the
police---Driver of the trawler which contained

the consignment stated before investigating officer that the consignment was delivered to him by
theaccused---Statements of prosecution witnesses (under S. 161, Cr.P.C.) fully implicated the accused,
connecting him with the alleged offence---Bail granted to accused by High Court was cancelled in such
circumstances---
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2015 SCMR 279 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : GUL NOOR ALI

S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Public witness not

supporting prosecution case---Separate samples from each packet not taken---Effect---Narcotic weighing
13450 grams was allegedly recovered from a vehicle, which was driven by the accused---Prosecution
witnesses consisted of police officials and a public witness---Public witness stated that he was working
as a Razakar with the police on patrol duty, and that when the vehicle in question was stopped and
searched nothing was recovered on account of which he was declared as a hostile witness---Prosecution
thereafter proceeded with its case by adducing evidence of other prosecution witnesses who were all
police officials---Public witness associated with recovery of narcotic had not supported the prosecution
case, which created a dent in the veracity of the recovery being effected, and thus serious doubts had
arisen, benefit of which had to go to the accused---

Separate samples had not been taken from each and every packet for chemical analysis rather only one
sample weighing 10 grams had been separated and sent for chemical analysis, and it had also not been
specified as to from which packet the sample was separated---Such circumstances created serious doubt
in the prosecution case, benefit of which had to go the accused---Appeal was allowed accordingly and
conviction and sentence of accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was set
aside.

Citation Name : 2015 SCMR 308 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : SHAUKAT ALI alias BILLA

Side Opponent : State Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), recovery of narcotic was proved only
to the extent of 10 kilograms---Accused in such circumstances could at most be convicted under S. 9(c)
of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for narcotic weighing 10 kilograms---Proviso to S. 9(c) of
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provided that if quantity of recovered narcotic exceeded 10
kilograms, the punishment shall not be less than imprisonment for life---

Citation Name : 2015 PCrLJ 30 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : NOOR MUHAMMAD

9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account was submitted

by three officials, 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 officials, 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………-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.

Citation Name : 2015 PCrLJ 300 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : Syed RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH

s.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 anycontradiction---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.

Citation Name : 2015 PCrLJ 213 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : GHULAM QAMBAR

Ss. 9(c) & 15---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516-A---Possession and trafficking of narcotic,
aiding, abetment or association in narcotic offences---Disposal/destruction of recovered narcotic---
Appreciation ofevidence---Prosecution case was that 54 packets of charas weighing 54 Kgs. and 7 bottles
of liquor were recovered from the Dera of accused persons---Recovered case property was not
produced before the Trial Court- --Out of seized 54 Kgs. charas, only 270 grams were separated and sent
to Chemical Examiner, and remaining quantity was allegedly destroyed on the request of the
prosecution with the permission of the Trial Court under S.516-A, Cr.P.C. without serving any notice to
accused persons or their counsel during the trial---Validity---

Alleged destruction of case-property being violative of due process of law and without providing an
opportunity of hearing to accused person, lacked legal sanctity, which could not be endorsed---To
discharge the onus of proof, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that 54 Kgs. charas was
recovered from the possession of accused persons; and same was kept in safe custody as incriminating
material/case-propertyto produce the same before the court---Unless the incriminating material was
produced before the court; and the court was satisfied that alleged recovery was made, sealed and kept
properly in accordance with law, it would be difficult to endorse that accused could be held liable for
alleged recovery---Benefit of non-productionof incriminating material before the Trial Court, could not
be extended to the prosecution, rather same would go to accused person---Prosecution had failed to
establish its case under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 against accused---In view
of the prosecution evidence with regard to securing of 270 grams of charas as sample from alleged
recovered charas for chemical examination, and in the light of report of the Chemical Examiner,
declaring the sample as charas, case of the prosecution was established only to the extent of 270 grams
of charas against accused persons---Accused persons were liable for that quantity, which was punishable
with seven years---Accused were convicted and sentenced accordingly---Accused persons having already
served more than the sentence of seven years, they were ordered to be released forthwith, in
circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 27 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANSide Appellant : ALLAUDDIN

S. 9(c)---Recovery of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in lodging F.I.R. due to practical
difficulties---

Charas weighing 306 kilograms was recovered from vehicle driven by accused and Trial Court convicted
and sentenced him to imprisonment for life---Plea raised by accused was that F.I.R. and statements of
prosecution witnesses were recorded with a delay of 7 hours---Validity---Authorities apprehended
accused along with contraband Charas on5-5-2011 at about 3-00 a.m. and due to odd hours of night, it
was not possible to proceed towards police station, therefore, F.I.R. was lodged at 8-00 a.m. on 5-5-
2011---Time of few hours elapsed due to practical difficulties, even otherwise mere delay in lodging
F.I.R. was not fatal nor due to such delay prosecution derived any undueadvantage---Statements of
prosecution witnesses were worthy of credence and there was no occasion to disbelievethem---
Variation in statements of witnesses, which were neither material nor serious enough to affect case of
prosecution, were of no avail---Statements of witnesses had to be read as a whole and Court should not
pick up sentences in isolation from entire statement ignoring its proper course---Judgment passed by
Trial Court waswell-founded and High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court
to accused---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 PLD 69 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : NASEEBULLAH

9(c)---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.11---Juvenile Justice Rules, 2001, R.6---
Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Minority of accused---Effect---Release of minor accused on
probation---Contention of counsel for accused was that accused who at the time of incident was below
the age of 18 years, being a juvenile, was entitled to be dealt with under S.11 of the Juvenile Justice
System Ordinance, 2000---Validity---

Accused though at the time of commission of offence was a juvenile, but at the time of arrest and
conclusion of his trial, and passing the impugned judgment of conviction, he had attained the age of
19/20 years---Mere minority orjuvenile-ship of accused was not the criteria for grant of relief under S.11
of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, in matter of conviction---There could be some minor
offences, in which sentence could be normally short, and if the court passed an order of conviction, the
beneficial provisions could be exercised in his favour---If, however, accused was charged for a heinous
offence and sentenced to life imprisonment, his case could not be treated at par with minor offences---
Age, seriousness of the offence, and past record of criminal activities of accused, at the time of
conviction, would also be a relevant factor; which would also be adhered to---Juvenile Justice System,
which was meant to treat a child accused with care and sensitivity, offering him a chance to reform and
settle into the mainstream of society, same could not be allowed to be used as a ploy to dupe the course
of justice, while conducting trial; and treatment of heinous offences---Court must be

sensitive in dealing with the juveniles, who were involved in cases of serious natures like druglord,
murder, gang rape, terrorism, sexual molestation, and host of other offences---Minor/Juvenile accused
could never be allowed to abuse the statutory protection and concession/rather involvement in a
flagitious crime, must be meted out stringent punishment to discourage the involvement of minors by
the people for settling their score through them (Juveniles).

Citation Name : 2014 PLD 69 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : NASEEBULLAH

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Both Station House Officer
of Police Station, the seizing officer and prosecution witness, who were marginal witness of the recovery
memo being star witnesses of the prosecution, had furnished the ocular account of the occurrence---
Both had corroborated each other on all material particulars of the incident; such as the mode and
manner of reaching of accused at the spot in the motorcar; its chase by the Police party; and recovery of
narcotics from the same and had established their presence at the spot at the time of arrest of accused;
and recovery from the vehicle driver---Said witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-
examination, but their testimony could not be shattered on material aspects of thecase---Chemical
Analysis Report with regard to contraband, was positive---Burden of proving that accused were not in
possession or knowledge of the contraband in the motor car, was upon accused persons, but they failed
to appear and explain the same---Accused persons had furnished different versions regarding their
travelling at the odd hours of night, which did not appeal to a prudent mind---Recovery of arms and
ammunition from accused had further supplemented the story of prosecution---Plea of substitution and
false implication, raised by accused was nothing, but merely an attempt to hide their own guilt---False,
fabricated and afterthought defence version, had rightly been rejected by the Trial Court---Accused had
failed to attract any circumstance to create doubt in the prosecution case qua his innocence---In view of
huge quantity of 3 maunds of backed charas and its price which was in million, question of foisting the
same against accused, did not appeal to a prudent mind---No evidence was available to show previousill-
will, grudge, enmity or rancour of accused persons with prosecution witnesses---Mere fact that
witnesses were Police Officials, would not discard their testimony because Police Officials, were as good
witnesses like others, and their testimony could be relied upon unless and until any enmity or ill-will was
proved---No hard and fast rule existed that only private witness would speak the truth---Prosecution had
fully proved its case against accused through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence---Trial Court
which had properly appreciated the evidence on record, had rightly convicted and sentenced accused---
Counsel for accused having failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment,
which could warrant interference, appeal against impugned judgment, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 PLD 69 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : NASEEBULLAH

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5---Possessing and
trafficking of narcotics---Delay in sending samples for analysis---Effect---Investigating Officer was not
barred to send the sample beyond 72 hours of the seizure---Control of Narcotic Substances
(Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, could not control substantive provisions of Control of Narcotic
Substances Act, and Rules were to be applied in such a manner that its operation would not frustrate
the purpose of the Act under which said Rules were framed---Failure to follow said Rules, would not
render the search, seizure and arrest under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, an absolute nullity
and make entire prosecution case doubtful, except for the consequence, provided in said Rules---Said
Rules were directory and not mandatory---Belateddispatch of sample for analysis, would not be fatal to
the prosecution case, in absence of any objection regarding the same, having been tampered or
manipulated.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 490 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : RASHEED Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---
Evidence of Police Officer, who was prosecution witness, and that of Mashir of the arrest and recovery,
had supported the prosecution case on each and every material particular of the case---Evidence of said
witnesses further got corroboration by Mashirnama, F.I.R. as well as positive chemical report available
on record---Prosecution witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, but their evidence remained
un-shattered---Nothing had been brought on record by accused to show any ill-will of prosecution
witnesses against him---Few minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which
were inconsequential in nature, were not enough to shatter the prosecution case---Evidence of Police
Officials, were to be considered as of other witnesses within the probability of truth and belief in
accordance with law, when nothing had been brought on record to show that Police witnesses had any
ill-will or grudge against accused---Section 103, Cr.P.C. was not applicable to the proceedings under the
provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Sample parcel though was dispatched for
testing purpose after lapse of more than two months, but said delay, was not

helpful to the accused, as evidence of witnesses of recovery of charas inspired confidence---In absence
of any proof of tampering with the material, delay in sending samples to laboratory for chemical analysis
was of no avail to accused---Sufficient material being available before the Trial Court in shape of
unimpeachable ocular evidence coupled with Mashirnama of arrest and positive report of Chemical
Examiner for establishing the guilt of accused for the alleged charge, Trial Court had rightly convicted
accused---In absence of any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court calling for
interference, High Court maintained said judgment with modification that as the alleged recovery was
1500 grams charas which was below 2 Kilograms, sentence provided against said recovery which was
five years and fine of Rs.20,000, was modified and reduced to four years and six months' R.I. in
circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 YLR 37 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANSide Appellant : SAJJAD ALI

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---
Bail, refusalof---Accused were named in the F.I.R. with a specific role attributed to them that a huge
quantity of narcotics (charas) was recovered from their possession---Case against accused persons prima
facie attracted the provisions of Ss.6, 7, 8 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, punishable under
S.9(c) of the Act for which the punishment was provided to death, imprisonment for life or 14 years---No
authentic documents had been produced by the counsel for accused regarding case of accused to prove
that accused was a juvenile---

Accused were not entitled for the concession of bail, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 267 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANSide Appellant : ALI JAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9(c), 37 & 39---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Freezing and forfeiture of assets---Amount lying
in the accounts of accused had been improperly seized and confiscated, as the Trial Court failed to
inquire properly and adjudicate upon the application filed under S.37 of Control of Narcotic Substances
Act,1997---Trial Court failed to put substance of the allegation to accused; and did not give the accused
a chance to show that amount lying in his account was not the proceed of the narcotics---Prima facie,
duty ofAnti-Narcotics Force Authorities was to collect material to connect the alleged account that was
maintained by accused; and showing that same was the result of the proceed of the narcotics; and that
he had no other means to earn or deposit the amount---Impugned order being not legal was set aside---
Application filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force under S.37 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997,
would be treated as pending before the Special Judge concerned, who was directed to observe the legal
formalities as provided under S.39 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and to decide the
matter in accordance with law.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 267 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANSide Appellant : ALI JAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution had successfully

established, the recovery of contraband charas and opium from the possession of accused, whose
presence at the place of incident was not denied---All the three witnesses specifically stated that Anti-
Narcotics Force Commander received source information about the presence of narcotic substance with
accused for transportation of the same out of thecountry---Evidence of the prosecution was not
controverted or rebutted successfully---Evidence produced by accused in their defence also described
their involvement in the commission of the alleged offence---Accused neither denied their presence at
the site nor justified their presence, whereas record had reflected that none of them was permanently
residing there---No illegality, impropriety, misreading and non-reading of the evidence was found in the
impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court---Prosecution evidence was not only corroboratory but
also reliable and confidence inspiring---

Nothing was in the evidence which could show any ulterior motive or design to involve or implicate
accused in the alleged offence---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused under S.9(c) of Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by the Trial Court, was maintained and appeal to that extent was
dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1663 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side 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 duringcross-examination---Defence failed to create any doubt, beneficial to it in any
manner---Assistant Sub- 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 not 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 : 2014 PCrLJ 1649 LAHORE-HIGH-

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 notorious 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.

2014 PCrLJ 1649 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : GHULAB ALI alias GHULABO

Side Opponent : State

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.

Citation Name : 2014 SCMR 1603 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Mst. NASREEN BIBI

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c) ---Possession of narcotic---Reappraisal of evidence ---Sentence, reduction in---Narcotic found
in different

bags--- Separate samples to be taken from each bag--- Consolidated sample taken from all bags---
Effect---

Accused-lady was apprehended while in possession of four bags allegedly containing 40 kilograms of
poast---

Trial Court convicted accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced
her imprisonment for life, which sentence was upheld by the High Court---Validity---F.I.R. and memo of
recovery showed that a consolidated sample of five hundred grams was separated from the four bags
and sent for

testing--- No separate sample had been secured (from each bag) and tested vis-à-vis the substance
contained in

each bag--- Since only one consolidated sample was taken from the four bags, thus only one bag out of
the four

bags could be counted towards the guilt of accused---If four bags contained forty kilograms of poast,
then one bag could be said to have contained ten kilograms of poast, and it was only such quantity
which could be

considered against the accused for the purposes of her conviction and sentence---Sentence of accused
was reduced in such circumstances from imprisonment for life to that already undergone by her---
Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : SAJJAD AHMAD

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant and prosecution

witness had fully supported the prosecution version, on account of recovery; they were subjected to
lengthy cross- examination, but the defence had failed to bring on record any evidence favouring the
defenceversion---Other prosecution witness also reiterated the facts as given in the F.I.R., as well as
uttered by the complainant; he was also subjected to lengthy searching cross-examination, but with no
fruitful result---Noobjection had been raised to the effect that the contraband was unsealed or
tampered with, therefore, delay in sending the sample for examiner would not affect result of Chemical
Examiner---Report of Chemical Examiner was positive, and the defence had not disputed the nature of
contraband---Contention that no private person having been associated to witness the recovery,
recovery was false, was devoid of force as by virtue of S.25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act,
1997, provision of S.103, Cr.P.C. was excluded---TrialCourt while taking note of fact that accused was
first offender, had already inflicted alternative sentence of imprisonment for life---Prosecution had fully
established its case against accused through leading tangible andconfidence-inspiring evidence---Trial
Court while appreciating the evidence available on the record in its true perspective, had rightly
recorded the conviction and sentence against accused.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1333 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : IRFAN ALI

Side Opponent : State

S. 516-A--- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Superdari of vehicle used in
transportation ofnarcotic---Scope---Police took vehicle in question into possession after 40 kilograms of
charas was found from itstrunk---Petitioner filed application for superdari of vehicle before Trial Court
contending that he was the actual and sole owner of the same, and that there was nothing on record to
show that narcotic recovered from vehicle was transported with consent, connivance or complicity of
the petitioner---Said application was dismissed by TrialCourt---Validity---Record did not show as to from
whom petitioner purchased the vehicle in question---Trial of the case had not concluded therefore it
could not be said with certainty that petitioner was not in conscious knowledge of recovered
contraband---Since vehicle in question was case property of a case involving huge quantity of charas, it
had to be exhibited during trial of the case and its custody could not be granted to petitioner on
superdari---No material was available on record to show that petitioner was ostensible owner of the
vehicle---Trial Court had rightly refused custody of vehicle on superdari to the petitioner---

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2014 PLD 127 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MIAN KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Preamble, S.9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Object of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,

1997---

Discretion of court---Scope---Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had been enacted to curb the
menace of trafficking of narcotics---Involvement of ladies and juvenile, in the said business had become
order of the day, as they could easily earn benefit of their gender and tender age---Mandatory remedies
and concessions accorded by the law could not be withheld---While exercising discretionary power,
regard must be had to the consequences, ensuing therefrom---Courts were required to strike the
balance, as future of the whole generation could not be sacrified at the altar of unwarranted concession
to a drug trafficker---Impugnedjudgment of the Trial Court, whereby accused was convicted and
sentenced, could not be interfered with, in circumstances.

2014 PLD 127 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MIAN KHAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 11---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---

Releasing accused on probation---Discretion of Juvenile Court---Juvenile Court in its judgment found the
convict of 20 years of age at the time of his arrest---Convict was also found in possession of his
computerized National Identity Card which could only be issued on attaining the age of 18 years---On
the basis of report of Standing Medical Board, convict was around 18 years, and he was referred to the
Juvenile Court for trial---Case was registered against convict in 2010 when he was found at the border
line of juvenility, whereas at the moment he was no more juvenile---Section 11(b) of the Juvenile Justice
Ordinance, 2000, squarely copes with such a

situation, stipulating that a child offender could be sent to borstal institution, until he attained the age
of 18 years, or for the period of his imprisonment, whichever was earlier---Said statutory provision was
clear manifestation of the intention of the Legislature that on attaining the age of 18 years,
convict/juvenile, was no more entitled to any such leniency, as he lost his status of juvenile accused in
such eventuality---Firstly,release of juvenile convict on probation was a discretionary matter only to be
decided by the Juvenile Court, and secondly, the Juvenile Court could not exercise such discretion on
extinguishment of the status of the convict as juvenile---Trial Court had turned down the plea of convict
on the same ground which was in accordance with law and within the parameters of S.11 of Juvenile
Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

Citation Name : 2014 YLR 1550 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANSide Appellant : GHULAM MUSTAFA

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Raiding party, on the

pointation of accused, recovered a huge quantity of 'charas' and opium---One of the prosecution
witnesses, had given the full account of episode and produced 'Marasila' and disclosure memo, whereas
other prosecution witness had corroborated said witness, on each and every material particular by
making a detailed statement---Prosecutionhad established the guilt to the hilt beyond reasonable
doubt---Neither there was any misreading or non- reading of evidence, nor could counsel for accused
had pointed out the same---Prosecution witnesses, inspired confidence; and could not be shaken
despite lengthy cross-examination---Accused had admitted that Anti- Narcotic Force, had got no grudge
or ill-will against him---Not comprehensible as to why Anti-NarcoticForce, would plant such a huge
quantity of narcotic against accused---Forensic Science Laboratory's report, had proved the fact that the
recovered materials were 'charas' and 'opium'---Sample of 'charas' was 1-1/2 Kilo grams, which itself fell
under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; and 500 grams if treated to have been taken
from one packet that was 10 Kilograms per packet, that too, attracted the sentence that had been
awarded to accused---Contention that on the same set of evidence, accused had been convicted, and
hisco-accused had been acquitted, was of no avail, because the courts were required to 'sift the grain
fromchaff'-- -Findings of the Trial Court, were above board and not liable to be disturbed---No illegality
or irregularity could be pointed out in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, as the court after
proper appraisal of the evidence and attending each and every aspect of the case, had rightly found
accusedguilty---Counsel for accused, having failed to make out a case for interference, in the impugned
judgment, appeal against said judgment was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 YLR 1665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD YOUSIF

TANIO

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Recovery of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in sending samples---

Policewitnesses---Effect---Charas weighing 9 Maunds and 30 kilograms (390 kgs) was recovered from
vehicle in which all three accused were present---Trial Court convicted all three accused and sentenced
them to imprisonment forlife---Plea raised by accused was that there was unexplained delay of four
days in sending samples to laboratory and all recovery witnesses were police officials---Validity---Held, it
was not requirement of law that whole contraband material should be sent for chemical examination for
opinion of Chemical Examiner, only a portion was to besent---Delay of four days in sending samples
could not be treated as fatal in absence of objections regarding the same having been tampered with or
manipulated---Sample was sent to Chemical Examiner after four days of recovery but from evidence of
complainant and investigating officer no question was put to any of them as to where the sample was
lying during those four days---Such delay in sending samples was immaterial and did not adversely affect
prosecution case---Though prosecution witnesses had given different weight of allegedly recovered
contraband material than the one disclosed in F.I.R. but on the basis of such difference in weight alone it
could not be said that no recovery was effected from accused and they could not claim acquittal in such
a heinous offence involving capitalpunishment---Evidence of police officials could not be disbelieved as a
whole merely because of their being police officials until and unless some mala fide or enmity was
brought on record to indicate false implication of accused in case, which factor was missing---Trial Court
did not commit any illegality while convicting accused persons---HighCourt maintained conviction and
sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 983 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : ABDUL SATTAR BAIG

Side Opponent : State

S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.395, 411, 420, 468, 471, 409, 170 & 171---Pakistan Arms Ordinance
(XX of 1965),S.13---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(a)---Dacoity, dishonestly
receiving stolen property, cheating, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged
document, criminal breach of trust by public servant, personating a public servant, wearing garb or
carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent, possessing unlicensed arms, possessing
and trafficking narcotics---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---

Accused after obtaining ad interim bail, had not joined investigation---Prima facie, reasonable grounds
existed to believe that accused were involved in commission of offences and did not deserve grant of
bail.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 516 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : Mst. THELAY DARA

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9(c) & 29---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---

Contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the star witnesses of the prosecution, could not
be considered so material so as to shatter and make doubtful the recovery of the contraband---Such
discordant and conflicting portion of evidence, could at the most be termed as human error---Recovery
of contraband could not be doubted, when there was no defence and explanation against, prima facie,
established recovery of narcotics by accused as required under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances
Act, 1997---No enmity of the prosecution witnesses, who were Police Officials, with accused, was ever
suggested by accused---No explanation came forward from the side of accused as to for what purpose,
she was present there with her co- accused, having no relation with him---In absence of any such
explanation and simple denial by accused, would be sufficient to prove her guilt---Weight of recovered
substance, was less than the quantity as prescribed in proviso to S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic
Substances Act,1997---Accused, in circumstances, had become entitled to the benefit of a borderline
case---Accused was a first offender having no previous history of being involved in such like cases---
Accused being woman, would deserveleniency---Sentence awarded to accused being too harsh, called
for reduction---Maintaining conviction of accused, her sentence was reduced from 'Twenty-Five' years
R.I. to 'Ten' years R.I., and that of fine from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.50,000.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 561 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : AZIZ ULLAH KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9 & 32--- Possessing and trafficking narcotics--- Articles connected with narcotics---Taking of samples-
--

Where wrappers, slabs, cakes, packets, boxes, containers, etc. were recovered, it was mandatory to take
separate sample from every separate packet, wrapper, slab, box, container and cake to make it a
'Representative Sample' of narcotic substance recovered.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 662 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : GUL ZAMAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 9---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr.4 & 5---Recovery of
narcoticsubstance---Delay in sending samples to Government Analyst---Effect---Provisions of Rr. 4 & 5 of
Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, are directory and substantial
compliance issufficient-- -Even where there is no compliance at all, provisions of Control of Narcotic
Substances Act, 1997, are not invalidated by such non-compliance, if the act otherwise is done in
accordance with law.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 22 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IMRAN SHEIKH Side Opponent : 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.

Citation Name : 2014 MLD 690 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : FAKHAR ZAMAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---

Mitigatingcircumstances---Five witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove its case, had given a
vivid account of the occurrence in the court---No discrepancy was noticed in the statement of any of the
witnesses as could create doubt in the prosecution version---All the witnesses were subjected to a
searching cross-examination---Nothing was on record as could even remotely suggest that the
incriminating substance was either planted, or accused was falsely charged and there was no doubt as
to the guilt of accused---Accused who was a young man, was sentenced to lifeimprisonment---Accused
besides being a patient of Hepatitis-C was also a first offender, having no history of being involved in
narcotics cases---Material available on record showed that the accused appeared to be a carrier---Role
and conduct of accused, in circumstances, would call for lesser punishment---
While maintaining conviction of accused, his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to ten years'
R.I., by leaving the fine and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., intact.

Citation Name : 2014 YLR 1081 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : WAJID ALI

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9(c), 33 & 48---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Confiscation of vehicle allegedly involved in
offence---Special court having confiscated the vehicle being involved in the crime, appellant had sought
return of the same claiming to be last purchaser of vehicle in question---Appellant neither during
investigation nor during trial, bothered to apply to the concerned quarters for return of the vehicle; and
it was exactly after one year of the custody of the vehicle, that appellant applied for return of the same,
and that too by filing appeal---Original owners had also not applied for return of vehicle and were not
aggrieved of the impugned order of confiscation---When the vehicle was taken into possession, no
registration book or valid documents were produced or recovered from accused, and neither same were
exhibited during trial---Appeal claiming the return of vehicle in question being without any merits was
dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1289 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : ABDUL HAMEED

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 51(1)---Possession of narcotic---Bail,
refusalof---Narcotic hidden in a vehicle---Packets of charas weighing 14 kilograms in total were allegedly
recovered by the police from beneath the front seat of the driver, and from beneath the front and rear
seats of the vehicle---

Accused was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time---Quantity of charas recovered was
huge (i.e. 14 kilograms)---Case of prosecution was duly supported by statements of police officials, who
were eye- witnesses of the occurrence and had no mala fide or ill-will to implicate the accused--- Report
of Forensic Science Laboratory was in positive---Offence alleged entailed capital punishment and fell
within the restrictive clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., and also attracted the embargo contained in S. 51(1) of
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Bail petition of accused was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1295 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : BARKAT

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Accused persons had explicitly

understood the charge against them---Witnesses in the case were Excise Officials, their evidence would
not become invalid and could not be discarded, unless they were shown to be inimical and/or
interested---

Accused persons had admitted in their statements recorded on oath that they had no enmity with said
officialwitnesses--- Testimony of such witnesses could not be brushed aside, unless and until the
contrary was proved---TrialCourt had rightly believed the same to the extent of recovery of narcotics
from the vehicle---No embargo existed on the complainant being Investigating Officer---Accused was
driver of the vehicle and the driver had to be presumed to be having knowledge of availability of
recovered charas; and such presumption was corroborated with theevidence---Accused, in
circumstances, had rightly been convicted.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1344 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : IBRAR HUSSAIN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9(c), 32(2) & 48---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Confiscation of vehicle---Car in question taken
into custody on the allegation that same was being used by appellant/accused in the commission of
crime, was confiscated in favour of State and its auction was also ordered---Said car was given to
appellant in superdari by Special Court, but ignoring such aspect of the matter; and also violating the
process of issuance of notice to the appellant/owner and to enquire into the matter, confiscation of the
car was ordered by the Special Court---

Impugned judgment to the extent of confiscation of car was nullity in the eye of law, and was not
sustainable---

To such extent impugned order was set aside, and matter was remanded to the Special Court with the
direction, first to issue notice to the owner of car, and then to conduct a discrete inquiry, while
maintaining superdari with the appellant; and thereafter pass an order with regard to disposal of car.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : Syed GULLAB SHAH

Side Opponent : State

S. 497--- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances
(Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 4 & 5---Possession and transportation of narcotic---Bail,
refusalof---Accused was apprehended by the police on spy information and was found to be
transporting huge quantity of narcotic i.e. 8 kilograms of charas through a car, which was under his
control at the time ofarrest---Although only police officials and no private persons were associated as
witnesses to the alleged recovery, but it was no ground to grant bail unless some mala fides appeared
on part of police---No enmity orill-will had been brought on record by accused against the police to
show their false implication in thecase---Although samples were sent to the chemical expert with some
delay, but Rr. 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 placed no bar
on the investigating officer to send the samples beyond 72 hours of seizure of the narcotic substance---
Accused was refused bail accordingly.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : Syed GULLAB SHAH

Side Opponent : 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.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 1391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : Syed GULLAB SHAH
Side Opponent : State

S. 497--- Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possession and transportation of
narcotic---

Bail---Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) police recovering narcotic from possession of accused---Plea of
accused that CIA police was not empowered to effect recovery of narcotic substances---Validity---
Consideringsuch plea amounted to deeper appreciation of evidence, which was not permissible at bail
stage--- Accused was refused bail accordingly.

Citation Name : 2014 SCMR 1603 SUPREME-COURTSide Appellant : Mst. NASREEN BIBI

Side Opponent : State

S. 9---Possession of narcotic---Sample sent for examination---Narcotic found in different bags/packets---

Samples had to be secured from every bag or packet of narcotic substance, and each such sample was to
be separately tested by a chemical examiner.

Citation Name : 2014 YLR 31 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD IBRAR

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---F.I.R. was lodged on the same day of

occurrence---

Nothing in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses could give impression that they were to
implicate the accused falsely or were prompted by his enemies---Testimony of the said witnesses was
free from any material infirmity---Vehicle carrying the narcotic was in active control of the accused---
Report of Forensic Science Laboratory was available on record which showed that the stuff recovered
was charas---Saidreport was free from doubt---At the time of seizure of vehicle and personal search of
the accused, a registration book had been recovered and said vehicle was customs paid---Charge against
the accused had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 542 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : SADAM

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Ss.4(4), 5 & 7---Possessing and trafficking of
narcotic---Declaring accused as Juvenile, and ordering separate trial---Accused had claimed that he being
juvenile, his trial should be conducted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000---Medical Board
had given opinion that age of accused was about 20 years---Alleged incident took place 1 year, 5 months
and 21 days prior to the date of medicalexamination---Age of accused on the date, the alleged offence
took place, was about 18 years, 6 months and 9days---Accused in circumstances, was aged about 18 to
19 years at the time of occurrence---

Provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, were to be interpreted liberally; and when two
views were possible, one favouring accused had to be taken, particularly qua the juvenility, inasmuch as
it could be proved to be helpful for rehabilitation of accused on account of aid of Juvenile Justice System
Ordinance, 2000- --Accused was entitled to the benefit of the Ordinance and was declared as juvenile;
and his trial was ordered to be separated from the case of co-accused and could be sent to the Juvenile
Court.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 561 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : AZIZ ULLAH KHAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)--- Possessing and trafficking narcotics--- Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Co-

accusedhad already served out 16 years, 11 months and 22 days, including the remissions; and accused
had served out of 17 years, 6 months and 14 days including the remissions---Both accused persons, in
circumstances, had served out more sentence as provided in sentence policy, laid down in Ghulam
Murtaza v. The State PLD 2009 Lahore 362---Conviction of accused persons under S.9(c) of Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was upheld, but their sentence was reduced to already undergone by
them including the fine.

Citation Name : 2014 PCrLJ 454 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SALAM NOOR

Side Opponent : State

S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Bail, refusal

of---

Narcotic hidden in a vehicle---Driver of vehicle, liability of---Conscious knowledge of presence of

narcotic---

Scope---Accused was driving a truck, which was stopped at a police checkpoint---Upon search of the
truck 40 packets of narcotic weighing 40 kilograms were found from the spare tyre of the vehicle---Plea
of accused was that he did not have any conscious knowledge of the narcotic in the spare tyre, and that
co-accused, who was sitting in the front seat of the truck, had already been granted bail---Validity---
Driver of the vehicle was supposed to be custodian of the same---Merely shrugging of shoulders by the
accused that he had no conscious knowledge of what was present in the spare tyre of the vehicle was a
self-defeatingargument---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of all the samples was in the
affirmative---Caseof accused was different from the co-accused, who had been granted bail on the
grounds that he was not driver of the vehicle, therefore, he could not be saddled with responsibility of
possession of contraband recovered from spare tyre of the vehicle---Accused was prima facie connected
with the commission of theoffence---Bail petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 822 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : QADEER alias TEERAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic--- Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---"Representative

sample"--

-Scope---Accused was held guilty for possessing 15 Kgs. of contraband "crushed poppy heads"---Trial
Court convicted the accused and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine---Validity---
Representative sample of 10 grams was in fact taken out of 15 Kgs. of narcotics---Sample of only ten
grams from huge quantity of 15 Kgs. of crushed poppy heads could not be termed as "representative
sample"---Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had to be construed strictly and relevant provision
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 be impossible to hold that the total
commodity recovered from the possession of the accused was narcotic---

Accused deserved remission in sentence---Sentence was reduced to one already undergone by the
accused---

Appeal was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1308 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD FARAZ

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Accused who was driving

bus in question, would be held to be presumed to be in possession of narcotic substance hidden in
secret cavities of the bus---No legal prohibition existed for Police Official to be a complainant, if he was a
witness to the commission of offence and also to be an Investigating Officer as long as it would not in
any way, prejudice theaccused---No prejudice had been shown on record to have been caused to the
accused---No question regarding driving licence was asked in the case; and it was not even suggested
that there was no secret cavities in the bus, in question---Counsel for accused had not been able to point
out any contradiction between evidence of Mashir and evidence of complainant---Accused had been
proved guilty through evidence produced before the Trial Court---Counsel also had failed to point out
any piece of evidence, which could create doubt in the story of prosecution, or any illegality in the
impugned order passed by the Trial Court whereby accused was convicted and sentenced---Appeal was
dismissed.

Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1874 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SARDOOR KHAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Case was that of capital

charge and in such like cases evidence must come from some unimpeachable source, which should be
supported by strong piece of evidence which in the present case was missing---Arrest of accused on the
information of the informer, that he had connection with the Truck in question, and non-production of
said informer as prosecution witness, was beyondcomprehension---Prosecution having not been able to
prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence of accused recorded
by the Trial Court, was set aside---Accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him and was set
at liberty, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 YLR 2443 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution evidence was

consistent, unbiased and confidence-inspiring, and had come from a source which was quite
independent---

Complainant/Investigating Officer and recovery witness, corroborated each other on salient features;
and their statements not only seemed to be natural, but were trustworthy---Recovery of heavy quantity
of contraband heroin, could not be rebutted by accused---Narcotics valuing crores of rupees, could not
be termed to have been planted by Government Officials from their own pocket---Recovery of narcotics
having been established, and the reports of Chemical Examiner in that regard being positive, Trial Court
was justified in convicting accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1633 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD

SHAKOOR

Side Opponent : State

S. 9---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 4 & 5---Sending narcotic
substance to laboratory---Non-compliance of rules---Effect---Provisions of Rules 4 & 5 of Government
Analyst Rules, 2000, are directory in nature and in some particular circumstances and in so far as
accused is not specifically caused prejudice, non-compliance of Rules 4 and 5 of Control of Narcotic
Substances (Government Analyts) Rules, 2001, does not vitiate trial at all.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1633 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD

SHAKOOR

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9(c) & 29---Narcotic substance, recovery of---Appreciation of evidence---Conscious knowledge---

Proof---

Shifting of onus to prove---Charas Garda weighing 159.2 kilogram was recovered from secret cavities of
car in use of both the accused persons---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to
imprisonment forlife---Validity---Both the accused were in the exclusive possession of car, whereof
narcotic drugs were

recovered, presumption to be that the narcotics concealed in secret cavities of the car was in their
knowledge and as such both the accused were said to be in conscious possession of narcotics, otherwise
they must prove that they were ignorant of contraband---High Court did not find any infirmity in
judgment passed by Trial Court resultantly conviction and sentence was maintained---Appeal was
dismissed in circumstances.

Name : 2013 YLR 1667 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SAJJAD AHMAD

Side Opponent : State

Ss.9(c) & 29---Recovery of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Defence plea---False implication---Onus

toprove---Accused were driver and co-driver of truck, out of which Charas and opium weighing 278
kilograms wasrecovered---Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment
for life---Plea raised by accused was that they were falsely implicated---Validity---Narration given by all
prosecution witnesses remained consistent and confidence inspiring---Question of false implication was
too remote a possibility---

Accused in a futile attempt tried to make out a case by saying that nothing was recovered from the truck
driven by them or they did not know about presence of contraband in truck in question and they had
been falsely charged in the case---Accused, neither opted to produce defence witness nor desired to
depose on oath in support of their contentions which fact too proved their guilt---Charge against
accused was proved beyond any shadow of doubt and Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced
the accused---Findings of Trial Court were free from any infirmity and were not open to any
interference---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 MLD 1299 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD TAHIR

NAWAZ

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9(b) & 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Conversion of sentence from Ss.9(c)

to 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Separate sample from each recovered packet not
sent---Effect---

Only that quantity of recovered narcotic to be considered against the accused from which sample taken
andtested---Twenty packets of heroin, weighing 3.9 kilograms were recovered from the accused---Trial
Court convicted the accused under S. 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Contention of
accused was that only three samples of 10 grams each, from three packets were sent for Chemical
Examination; that if the total weight of 20 packets (3.9 kilograms) recovered from him was divided into
equal weights of 20 packets, the weight of each packet was about 200 grams, and since samples were
sent from only three packets, therefore, total weight of recovered heroin should be considered as 600
grams; that in such circumstances offence fell under S. 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
and not under S. 9(c) of the Act---Validity---Admittedly only three samples (10 grams each) from three
packets, each packet weighing 200 grams, were taken and sent for chemical examination---Such fact was
also verified from the Chemical Examination report---Contention of accused regarding conversion of his
sentence from Ss.9(c) to 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 , in circumstances of the case,
appeared to becorrect---Accused had already undergone a substantial sentence of imprisonment of
about four years and he had shown repentance and promised not to repeat similar offence in future---
Accused was also willing to pay the fine of Rs.100,000 imposed upon him by the Trial Court---

Conviction recorded by Trial Court under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was
converted into S.9(b) of the Act---Accused was sentenced for a period already undergone by him with a
fine of Rs.100,000---

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1840 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SHAHID

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---
Bail, grantof---For the purpose of bail in such like offences, the quantity of contraband and the expected
quantity of punishment, which was to be awarded at the conclusion of trial, was to be taken into
account while allowing bail toaccused---In the present case, in view of the quantity of narcotic
recovered, there was no possibility of awarding maximum punishment provided under sub-clause (c) of
S.9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Investigationagainst accused was complete and he was
no more required for any further investigation-- -Accused was neither a previous convict nor involved in
such like offences---Keeping accused behind the bars, would serve no useful purpose to prosecution, in
circumstances---Accused was admitted to bail.
Citation Name : 2013 SCMR 1538 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : NADEEM ASHRAF

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(a) & 9(c)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.
185(3)---Possession of narcotic--- Bail, refusal of--- Narcotic contained in different packets/ parcels
mixed together before being sent for chemical analysis---Allegation against accused was that he had
booked cartons for cargo, and upon search of said cartons heroin weighing 945 grams was recovered
from 26 elevators and 420 grams of heroin was recovered from the other 10 elevators---Pleas of
accused were that entire heroin recovered from 26 elevators was mixed together and only 10 grams
were sent for chemical analysis; that heroin recovered from other 10 elevators was also mixed together
and only 10 grams was sent for chemical analysis; that in such circumstances the total heroin which was
sent and tested by the chemical examiner would come only to 78.34 grams and he could only be
convicted for the heroin which was sent and tested for analysis in view of the law laid down in the case
of Ameer Zeb v. State (PLD 2012 SC 380); that offence against him in such circumstances would fall
within the mischief of S. 9(a) and not S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Validity---

Judgment to which reference was made by accused i.e. Ameer Zeb v. State (PLD 2012 SC 380) was a
criminal appeal, wherein the entire evidence had been led---Trial in the present case was yet to
commence and it would be presumptuous on part of the accused to infer that the prosecution would
lead evidence only to the extent of the weight to which he had made reference---Prosecution was free
to lead further evidence in the present case and to request the court that it be allowed to send the
entire narcotics allegedly recovered from the accused for chemical analysis---Accused was refused bail in
circumstances---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : HAFTAY KHAN

Side Opponent : 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.

Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1895 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MAQBALI KHAN

Side Opponent : State

S.9(c)---Recovery of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Fake recovery, planting of---
Consciousknowledge---Proof---Accused was driver of the vehicle from which Charas weighing 72
kilogram was recovered from secret cavities---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to
imprisonment for seven years---

Plea raised by accused was that prosecution did not prove conscious knowledge of accused regarding
presence of Charas in the vehicle--- Validity--- Samples, from recovered narcotics, were sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and report received therefrom was in positive---Nothing was
brought on record to prove that recovered contraband was planted against accused---Such huge
quantity worth lacs of rupees could not be planted by police at its own, in absence of any enmity or
ulterior motive against accused---

No evidence was available to prove that prosecution witnesses had any previous enmity or grudge with
accused to falsely implicate him in the case---Accused at the relevant time was driving motor car in
question and was incharge of the same which was under his control and possession---Whatever articles
were lying in vehicle were under his control and huge quantity of narcotics had been recovered from
secret cavities of his car for which no other person could be held responsible, except the accused, who
was incharge of the vehicle which he was driving---No misreading and non-reading of evidence or any
infirmity in judgment was noticed which could warrant interference of High Court in its appellate
jurisdiction---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 YLR 2051 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Samples, were sent to

Chemical Examiner, the very next day of occurrence, and report of Chemical Examiner was in positive---
Both prosecution witnesses, were put to the test of lengthy cross-examination, but their testimony qua
the date of incident, quantity of charas and place of incident could not be shattered---Contradictions,
allegedly pointed out by counsel for accused, were minor in nature and would not be fatal to the
prosecution case---Accused was

apprehended while holding the plastic bag containing contraband charas intending thereby to transport
the same to another place---No reason or ground was available to show that accused was not in
knowledge of substance lying in his bag---Accused was proved to be taking away the contraband with
pre-planning---

Prosecution had also proved departure and arrival of the complainant party by producing entries---
Accusedalso failed to show any enmity or ill-will against the complainant and mashir causing them to
depose against him falsely---Foisting of such a huge quantity of contraband charas upon accused was
not possible---TrialCourt, in circumstances did not commit any illegality while awarding sentence to
accused, against whom sufficient evidence was on record to prove charge under S.9(c) of Control of
Narcotic Substances Act,1997---No ground being available to interfere in the impugned judgment of the
Trial Court, appeal against said judgment was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1597 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : WAJID ALI

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.243 & 412---Possessing and trafficking narcotic---
Appreciation ofevidence---Right of appeal of accused who pleaded guilty---Accused pleaded guilty and
the Trial Court recorded confessional statement of accused---Record had clearly revealed that accused
was intimated about the charge and consequences of confession---Show-cause notice was given to
accused under S.243, Cr.P.C.---

Accused remained consistent with confessional statement---Trial Court, after fulfilling codal formalities,
recorded confessional statement of accused and certified that same was true and voluntary---Accused
had made his confessional statement voluntarily, and it did not suffer from any defect of form or
substance---

Retraction of confession was not enough to make it involuntary, or diminished its intrinsic value---By
virtue of provision of S.412, Cr.P.C., accused who pleaded guilty to the charge, had no right of appeal
against his conviction, but could maintain an appeal only to the extent of the legality of the sentence
passed against him by the Trial Court---TrialCourt while convicting accused kept into the consideration
settled law---Conviction of accused recorded by the Trial Court was not open to any legitimate
exception---Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was maintained and appeal was
dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1642 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD YOUSIF

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 6 & 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Possession and control over narcotic---

Scope---Vehicle being driven by accused was stopped at a check-post and 40 bundles of charas weighing
40 kilograms were recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle---Trial Court convicted and
sentenced the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Validity---When
accused was driving the vehicle, he was incharge of the same, therefore narcotic would be under his
control and possession, especially when he had started a long journey alone in the vehicle from which
recovery was effected---Person in charge of a vehicle on a long journey, would draw the presumption
against him that narcotic substance available in secret cavities of such a vehicle was in hisknowledge---
None of the prosecution witnesses had any enmity with the accused nor was it ever suggested that
there was any reason to falsely implicate the accused by foisting a huge quantity of narcotic upon him---
Evidence of prosecution witnesses remained consistent on all material particulars despite lengthy cross-
examination---Accordingto report of Chemical Examiner 40 packets, each containing 9 black rods
wrapped in plastic pane were sent to the Laboratory for examination on the same day of the incident
and also reached the Laboratory on the same day---Appealwas dismissed in circumstances.

2013 YLR 2443 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESide Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Sentence, reduction in---Accused required to be dealt with

iron hands as he was involved in a narcotic business, which was creating bad name for Pakistan in the
international community as a whole---Certain aspects in the case would help in determining of quantum
of sentence; whole narcotic substance i.e. heroin in the case was recovered from co-accused;
occurrence was stated to have taken place on 25-3-2005, but date in recovery memo was mentioned as
28-3-2008; Report of Chemical Examiner had not been signed by the Chemical Examiner; co-accused
from whom heavy quantity of contraband heroin was recovered, made confession during the course of
trial, and Trial Court while extending extraordinary politeness reduced his sentence to that already
undergone by him; accused was not previously involved in any other criminal case; it could safely be said
that accused was first offender---Section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, provided both
death sentence, as well as imprisonment for life, to meet the ends of justice it would be justified, if the
sentence of death was converted into imprisonment forlife---Sentence of death was modified into
imprisonment for life and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., was also extended to the accused.

Citation Name : 2013 PLD 586 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ASIF

Side Opponent : 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.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1837 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD SALEEM

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9(c) & 29(d)---Smuggling of narcotics---Possession of illicit articles, presumption---Appreciation of

evidence---Accused who were travelling in Bus, were arrested and in their presence and pointation,
huge quantity of narcotics was recovered---Boxes containing narcotics were lying on the roof of the Bus
and all accused had knowledge about the same---One of accused was owner, others were driver, second
driver and conductor of the Bus, and one of them was sitting in the Bus on whose pointation the
narcotics were recovered---

Contentions were that a driver and conductor could not be held responsible for transporting contraband
articles and that at best their responsibility would start only when the contraband items had been
recovered from the designed cavities of the bus---Validity---Under provisions of S.29(d) of Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, unless otherwise proved, presumption would be that accused had
committed an offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in respect of any material which
had undergone any process towards the production or manufacture of narcotics---Presence of accused
persons being owner, driver, second driver and conductor of the Bus was not denied; they were
arrested from the spot in presence ofMashirs---Recovered articles were lying openly in boxes on the
roof of the Bus, same would be in the knowledge of accused persons- --Accused, in circumstances were
equally responsible for the transportation of said narcotic substance and in circumstances could not be
absolved from the responsibility.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 1837 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD SALEEM

Side Opponent : 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
ofaccused---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 wererecovered---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---Oculartestimony 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.

Citation Name : 2013 MLD 1860 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : Mst. NAZO

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Bail, refusal

of---

Pregnant female accused with sucking baby---Accused-lady while travelling in a car was stopped at a
police checkpoint and upon her search five kilograms of charas was found tied with the string of her
trouser---Plea of accused was that she was mother of a suckling baby and was also four months'
pregnant---Validity---Accused was stopped at a police checkpoint and searched by a lady constable---
Report of samples sent to Forensic Science Laboratory was inpositive---Nothing was available on record
to show that witnesses had any mala fide or ulterior motives to falsely implicate the accused---Had the
accused been concerned about her suckling baby, she would not have resorted to indulge in such
activity which had afflicted the whole society and especially the younger generation---Prima facie
accused was connected with the commission of the offence---High Court observed that off late narcotic
mafia had devised new modes and means of smuggling narcotics by employing ladies and youngster in
the hope that even if they got caught red-handed, they might be extended concession of bail by the
courts on grounds of womanhood or juvenility and that such conduct amounted to taking liberty with
the law of the land---Bail petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2013 MLD 1822 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : ABDUL HUSSAIN

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Grant of probation to accused for good

conduct---

Contraband had been recovered from the direct possession of the accused and report of the Forensic
Science Laboratory was positive---Seizing Officer and author of the murasila reiterated his version set
forth by him in his murasila report---Marginal witness of recovery memo had supported the version of
Seizing Officer and testified that said memo bore his signature and had established his presence on the
spot---Seizing Officer and marginal witness of recovery memo were consistent on each and every
material particular of the occurrence---

Opportunity of cross-examination had been provided but nothing could be extracted which could be
beneficial for thedefence---No malice, ill-will or enmity was attributed to the prosecution witnesses---
Mere fact that the prosecution witnesses were police officials would not be sufficient to discard their
confidence inspiring and trustworthytestimony---Police witnesses were also as good witness like others
and their testimony could be relied upon unless and until any ill-will or enmity on their part towards the
accused was proved---Nothing was on record to prove previous involvement or conviction of the
accused in such like cases who was of advance age of 49/50 years---Accusedbeing first offender was
released on bail on existing bail bonds and was placed on probation for good conduct for the period of
his sentence i.e. 3 years as a rigorous imprisonment.

Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1617 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : MUHAMMAD SADIQ

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 9(c)---Possession and trafficking
ofnarcotic---Bail, refusal of---Accused driving the vehicle alone---Control and possession over recovered
narcotic---Scope---Mixing the recovered narcotic before sending samples--- Scope--- Accused was
apprehended at a police barricade and upon search of his vehicle, 14 packets containing a total of 14
kilograms charas were allegedly recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle---Contentions of
accused were that packets of alleged narcotic were initially mixed together and then three samples
weighing 10 grams each were sent for chemical analysis, therefore, samples sent did not represent the
whole recovered consignment; that narcotic was not recovered from his personal possession but from
secret cavities of the vehicle, hence he had no conscious knowledge about it, and that trial had
commenced and he was no more required for further investigation---Validity---Accused was driving the
car alone and was in charge of it, therefore, same was under his control and possession---Articles lying in
the vehicle , in such circumstances, would also be under his control and possession---Some quantity of
narcotic was separated from each of the 14 packets and then mixed up, wherefrom three samples of 10
grams each were prepared and only sample of 10 grams was sent for chemical analysis, which denoted
that sample sent for analysis represented the whole lot of 14packets---Challan was complete and trial
had commenced---Bail petition of accused was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1683 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : ABDUR RAHIM alias
RAHIMAY

Side Opponent : 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---
ForensicScience 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 ornon-availability of embossing marks was concerned, recovery of
contraband could not be negated on merenon-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.

Citation Name : 2013 YLR 1502 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSide Appellant : ALI AHMED KHAKHRANI

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Bail, refusal

of---

Recovery of large quantity of narcotic---Foisting of narcotic upon accused not probable---Effect---

Duringpatrolling duty, police conducted personal search of accused and allegedly recovered 3000 grams
of charas from his possession---Apparently such huge quantity of charas could not be foisted upon the
accused---

Although private persons were not associated to act as mashirs, but such aspect of the case required
deeper appreciation of evidence, which was not possible at bail stage---Report of Chemical Examiner
was in positive---

Offence alleged was punishable with death or life imprisonment---Bail application of accused was
dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 MLD 1078 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SAIF-UL-ABBAS

Side Opponent : State

Ss.9(c) & 29---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342---Recovery of narcotics---Appreciation of

evidence---

Defence plea---False implication---Onus to prove---Accused was driving car out of which Charas weighing
185 kilograms was recovered---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment
for life---

Accused raised the plea that he was falsely implicated---Validity---Nothing was available on record to
show that quantity of substance recovered was exaggerated or that all packets recovered from vehicle
were not proved to have been of substance other than narcotics---Discrepancies or contradictions, if
any, in statements of prosecution witnesses, highlighted by accused were not of a nature as could
negate recovery resulting into dislodging entire prosecution version---Absence of any motive on the part
of prosecution witnesses would further negate possibility of false implication---Onus to prove defence
plea, under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was on the accused to have led evidence in
support of his innocence regarding lack of knowledge that he was ignorant about presence of any
narcotics in vehicle in question and to such effect his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. could be
quoted wherein he refused to produce any defence evidence in support of his innocence---Accused
being driver of motor car in question was presumed to be in control of the vehicle about which he had
complete knowledge even presence of anything in it---Question of ignorance regarding presence of any
contraband in the vehicle did notarise---Charge against accused was proved beyond any shadow of
doubt and Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced him---Findings of Trial Court were free from
any infirmity and were not open to any interference---Appealwas dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 915 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : ALI MUHAMMAD

Side Opponent : State

S. 9---Narcotics recovered during a raid---Officials of Anti-Narcotics Force, evidence of---Scope---

Whereofficials of Anti-Narcotics Force were members of the raiding party, their testimony could not be
discarded merely on the ground that they were employees of Anti-Narcotics Force.

Citation Name : 2013 MLD 133 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : KHALID KHAN

Side Opponent : State

S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Bail, refusal
of---

Conscious knowledge of narcotic---Scope---Accused, who was driver of the vehicle in question, was
stopped at police checkpoint and upon search, 20 kilograms of charas was recovered from specially
designed secret cavities in the vehicle---Accused was the only person present in the vehicle and was also
driving the same---

Accused being driver of the vehicle was required to know each and everything about the vehicle as he
was solely in-charge of it---Available material indicated that accused had conscious knowledge about
presence of

narcotics in the vehicle---Alleged offence was punishable with either death or anything not less than life
imprisonment, therefore, it was covered by the restrictive (prohibitory) clause of S.497, Cr.P.C---Challan
was complete and was likely to be submitted in Trial Court shortly---Bail petition of accused was
dismissed, in circumstances.

2013 PLD 23 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : GUL KHAN

Side Opponent : S.H.O. POLICE STATION ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE, PESHAWAR

Ss. 9(c), 46 & 48---Anti-Narcotics Force Act, (III of 1997), S.5---Frontier Crimes Regulations, 1901, S. 11---

Notification 4-4/98-ANF, dated 6-12-2010---Recovery of narcotics---Forum of trial---Political

Agent/Council ofElders---Powers---Scope---Power and jurisdiction of Sessions Judge have been invested
on Political Agent, while exercising powers under Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, therefore, in view of
notification, including two enactments i.e. Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Anti-Narcotics
Force Act, 1997 and in view of Second Schedule of Frontier Crimes Regulations as well as necessary
corollary and unavoidable implications, District Magistrate / Political Agent has to exercise powers of a
Sessions Judge in offences under the provision of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and role of
Council of Elders to which a reference is made under the provisions of S.11 of Frontier Crimes
Regulation, 1901, has become either redundant or has been narrowed in its scope and application.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 557 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SAJJAD

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, Rr. 4 & 5---Possession and
trafficking ofnarcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were apprehended at a police picket on the
basis of secret information and 175 kilograms of charas pukhta was recovered from the secret cavities of
the vehicle he was driving---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S.9(c) of Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Validity---Accused was driving the vehicle in question and was arrested
on the spot---F.I.R. was promptly lodged---Complainant (police official) was put to lengthy cross-
examination but nothing favourable to the defence was unearthed---Statement of complainant was in
full consonance with the facts and contents of the F.I.R. and recovery memo---Minorcontradictions in
statements of prosecution witnesses (police officials) were not sufficient to vitiate the prosecution case
or make recovery doubtful---Forensic Science Report confirmed that all samples sent were charas---
Mere delay in sending samples to Forensic Science Laboratory was not fatal to the prosecution case
because Rules 4 and 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 placed no
bar on the investigation officer to send the samples beyond the 72 hours of seizure or recovery of
contraband---Recovery of huge quantity of charas from secret cavities of vehicle had been proved
beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was dismissed and conviction of accused was maintained.

Citation Name : 2013 PCrLJ 454 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFPSide Appellant : SAEED NAWAZ

Side Opponent : State

S. 9(c)---Possession and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant, Police Officer,

who admitted the arrest of accused persons on the spot, was put to lengthy cross-examination, but
nothing favourable to the defence was unearthed---Complainant who made his statement fully in
consonance with the facts and contents of the F.I.R. and recovery memo, had established the
prosecution case up to the hilt---Arrest of accused on the spot and recovery of narcotic substances from
secret cavities of the vehicle being driven by accused, could not be denied orrebutted---Except for the
minor contradiction about the number of packets of the recovered contrabands, nothing favourable to
accused could be brought on record, in the shape of evidence of the prosecution witnesses---
Saidcontradiction was not of a serious nature, and same could not be considered to be fatal and
sufficient to vitiate the recovery proceedings, or to make the recovery doubtful---

Prosecution witness had stated that the recovery was effected in his presence from the secret cavities of
thevehicle---Rest of the witnesses had confirmed their respective roles as assigned to them by the
prosecution---

Report of Forensic Science Laboratory had confirmed that the contraband recovered from accused, was
actuallycharas---Delay in sending the samples to the Laboratory had fully been explained---No material
inconsistency or discrepancy, was found in the statements of prosecution witnesses---Recovery of huge
quantity of charas from the secret cavities of the seized vehicle had been proved beyond any shadow of
doubt- --Record also proved that at the time of arrest, accused was driving the vehicle and co-accused
was sitting in the front seat of said vehicle---Positivereport of Laboratory supported the prosecution
version and the prosecution on the strength of unimpeachable and consistent evidence had succeeded
in bringing home the charge against accused beyond any shadow of reasonabledoubt---All the witnesses
of the prosecution, who had witnessed the recovery of the contraband from the vehicle, had remained
consistent---Trial Court had rightly rejected defence version of accused persons regarding minor
contradiction about the number of packets of the contraband---Prosecution had successfully established
its case through confidence-inspiring evidence of

eye-witnesses recorded before the Trial Court, which was not at all shattered by the defence, during
cross-examination---Well-founded, well-reasoned order of the Trial Court, needed no interference by
High Court.