1989 PLP 3246 (MLD)
HAZRAT ALI KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3246 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Allahdino G. Memon, J |
| Parties | HAZRAT ALI KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3246 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3246 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Allahdino G. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3246 (MLD) (HAZRAT ALI KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 10th January, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4- Bail--Recovery of heroin--Contentions raised at bail stage on behalf of the accused that it was not known as to how much quantity of heroin was taken as sample for sending to the Chemical Examiner and that the accused was minor were repelled--No mandatory provision in the Prohibition Order requires the Investigating Officer to send a particular quantity of heroin as sample to the Chemical Examiner--Medical certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent, of the Hospital, showed the age of accused as 16 to 17 years--Offence was punishable with imprisonment for life--Bail was refused in circumstances. Taza Gul Khattak for the Applicant. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 10th January, 1989. The applicant is facing trial under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 on the allegation that he was found in possession of 100 grams of Heroin on 5-9-1988. The applicant moved an application for bail before the learned trial Judge but the same was rejected. It has been contended by Mr. Taza Gul Khattak learned counsel appearing for the applicant that it is not known as to how much quantity of Heroin was taken as sample to be sent to the Chemical Examiner. It was further contended that the applicant was minor and therefore he was entitled to bail. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi learned, AA.G. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that the entire Heroin was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the report is in positive. That the medical certificate shows that the age of the applicant is 16 to 17 years. That the incident is a recent incident. The case has not yet proceeded and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. There is nip provision of the Prohibition Order under which it was mandatory for the Investigating Officer to send a particular quantity of Heroin as sample to the Chemical Examiner. The medical certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent Services Hospital clearly shows that the age of the applicant is 16 A to 17 years. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. The incident is a recent incident and the case has not yet proceeded. Therefore no case is made out for bail and the application is accordingly rejected. However, the applicant will be entitled to repeat his bail application before the learned trial Judge after complainant and one mashir are examined. N.H.Q./H-145/K Application rejected.