2002 PLP 443 (MLD)
TARIQ — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 443 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TARIQ — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 443 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 443 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 443 (MLD) (TARIQ — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4, of 1979), Arts.3/4
Charge-sheet was silent about the essential requirement of forwarding the recovered heroin powder to Chemical Examiner for analysis
State Counsel also could not produce Chemical Examiner's Report and he was also not able to find out entry in that respect in the police papers/diaries
Provisions of.S.9(a) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, a parallel Statute, had prescribed punishment of two years in case of involving heroin powder weighing 100 grams or less whereas in the present case only 12 grams was secured from the possession of the accused and 10 grams from the other accused
Judgment & Decree
Dr. Muhammad Shafiq Bol Khan v. Hafiz Muhammad Taqi 1986 MLD 2220 and Shahid Javed v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1153 ref. Faridul Hassan Shah for Applicant. Sharafat Ali Khan State Counsel for the State. Date of hearing: 4th October, 2001. As stated in the F.I.R. applicant Tariq and another accused Abdul Rashid were apprehended by A.S.I. Abdur Razzak of Police Station Ghulshan-e-Iqbal from hutments situated in Railway Colony and on search heroin weighing 12 grams was secured from possession of the applicant and 10 grams from the other accused Abdul Rashid. A case was registered against the applicant for an offence punishable under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. A certified copy of charge-sheet, dated 12-8-2001 has been placed on record; it is silent about the essential requirement of forwarding the heroin powder to Chemical Examiner for analysis. Learned State Counsel also could not produce Chemical Examiner's Report. He was also not able to find out such entry in the police papers diaries. Indeed, on this score alone the case requires further enquiry. Learned State Counsel has no objection to grant of bail as I the quantity of heroin is too small.
3. It is of significance to mention that there is a parallel statute viz., the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, section 9(a) whereof prescribed a punishment of two years in case of heroin powder weighing 100 grams or less. All the same, the authorities cited by learned counsel for applicant, 1986 MLD 2220 (Dr. Muhammad Shafiq Bol Khan v. Hafiz Muhammad Taqi) and 1990 PCr.LJ 1153, (Karachi) (Shahid Javed v. The State) also supports the bail plea.
4. In these circumstances, considering no objection on behalf of State, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and executing P.R. Bond i the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./T-23/K Bail granted