2020 PLP 404 (SCMR)
FAZAL WAHAB — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 404 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sajjad Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL WAHAB — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 404 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 404 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Sajjad Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 404 (SCMR) (FAZAL WAHAB — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 771-P of 2017)
S. 9(c)
At the time of arrest of accused 6000 grams charas gardah was recovered from his possession
Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused produced complainant/ Station House Officer (SHO) and an Assistant sub-Inspector
Latter was also a witness of recovery
Both said witnesses while appearing before the Trial Court remained consistent on all the material aspects of the case
To prove safe custody of case property in malkhana, the prosecution produced the muharrir
Moreover, positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory substantially established the case of prosecution against the accused
During trial, the defence was not able to bring on record anything which could suggest that accused had been implicated in the case due to malice on the part of prosecution witnesses
Findings of guilt rendered by the courts below against the accused did not suffer from any infirmity
High Court had already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence of the accused from 14 years imprisonment to seven years and by reducing the fine from Rs. 200,000 to Rs.100,000
Jail petition was dismissed. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.
After a regular trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to fourteen years' R.I., with a direction to pay fine of Rs.200,000/-, in default whereof to undergo S.I. for two years. Benefit of section 382-B,. Code of Criminal Procedure was extended to him. The petitioner filed a criminal appeal before the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, which was disposed of with modification that sentence of the petitioner was reduced from fourteen years' R.I. to seven years' R.I. and the amount of fine was reduced from Rs. 200,000/- to Rs.100,000/-, in default whereof to undergo six months' S.I. Hence, the instant jail petition for leave to appeal.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Prosecution case against the petitioner as divulged from the contents of FIR, is that at the time of his arrest 6000 grams charas gardah was recovered from his possession. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the petitioner produced complainant Amir Zaman Khan, SHO (PW.2) and Ibn-e-Raza, ASI (PW.1). The latter is also a witness of recovery. Both these witnesses while appearing before the learned trial court remained consistent on all the material aspects of the case. To prove safe custody of case property in malkhana, the prosecution produced Muhammad Hussain, Muharrir (PW.4). Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that transmission of sample parcels to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) has not been established by the prosecution. In this regard, he pointed out that in the relevant column of report of FSL (Ex.PZ) only belt number of Constable (FC.No.352) who had taken the parcels to the FSL has been given but his name is not mentioned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State pointed out that Muhammad Yousaf, 352/FC has appeared as CW.2 and stated that he had transmitted the sample parcels to the office of FSL. In these circumstances, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance. Moreover, positive report of FSL (Ex.PZ) substantially establishes the case of prosecution against the petitioner. During trial, the defence was not able to bring on record anything which could suggest that petitioner has been implicated in this case due to malice on the part of prosecution witnesses. After evaluating the evidence available on record, we are of the view that findings of guilt rendered by the learned courts below against the petitioner do not suffer from any infirmity. Learned High Court has already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence of the petitioner. No interference is called for.
4. For the foregoing, the instant jail petition having no merit is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/F-3/SC Petition dismisse