2020 PLP 1000 (SCMR)
ASMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1000 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | ASMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1000 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1000 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial 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 1000 (SCMR) (ASMAT ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Amjad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 946-P of 2018)
S. 9(c)
Possession of 9600 grams of cannibas
Statements of recovery witnesses (police officials) were in tune with each other with no apparent motive to implicate the accused on a false charge
Substantial quantity of the contraband ruled out a manipulated recovery
Accused, who was driving the truck in question, in his bid to disproof the charge, admitted most parts of the events that took place on the day of incident except for an obvious denial regarding possession of narcotic in the truck
Accused was rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
R. 6
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)
Protocols/ procedure
Scope
Where forensic report conclusively established the narcotic character of the substance with sufficient details regarding the test carried out, the insufficiency of protocols mentioned in the said report was not consequential. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
During an haul up, Asmat Ali, petitioner, on the wheel of truck bearing No. Kohat-C-1417 was intercepted by a contingent of Police Station Cantt. Kohat; 9600 grams of contraband, forensically confirmed as cannabis, recovered from the tool box of the vehicle; learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 24.10.2018 returned a guilty verdict; convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, he was sentenced to 10-years' RI with a fine of Rs.100,000/-, upheld by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 24.09.2019, vires whereof, are being assailed on a variety of grounds.
2. Heard.
3. We have examined the statements of recovery witnesses i.e. Muhammad Ali, SHO (PW-1) and Anwar Ali Head Constable/Incharge Check Post (PW-2); they are in tune with each other with no apparent motive to hound the petitioner on a trump up charge; substantial quantity of the contraband rules out a manipulated recovery. Petitioner, in his bid to disproof the charge, admitted most parts of the transaction on the eventful day except for an obvious denial regarding the contraband; appearance of his defence witness Diswar Ali (DW-1) on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner District Lower Orakzai to suggest exit of the vehicle on 7.10.2017 from Boya Check Post fails to contradict petitioner's interception at the check post. On the contrary, petitioner's own statement on oath, obliquely confirmed by his witness, puts him in the saddle. Alleged insufficiency of "protocol" mentioned in the forensic report is beside the mark; it conclusively establishes the narcotic character of the substance with sufficient details regarding the test carried out. Conclusions concurrently drawn by the courts below, being in accord with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice, do not call for interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. MWA/A-21/SC Petition dismissed.