2006 PLP 1302 (SCMR)
THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh — Petitioner Versus DAWOOD — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1302 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh — Petitioner Versus DAWOOD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1302 (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 2006 PLP 1302 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1302 (SCMR) (THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh — Petitioner Versus DAWOOD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Kazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh and Akhlaq Ahmad, Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- THE STATE through Advocate-General, Sindh----Petitioner
- 4. We have heard learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. Tentatively speaking the reasons recorded by the High Court do not appear to be sound and are based on surmises and conjectures without the support of law. We are, therefore, inclined to grant leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence in order to ascertain whether the acquittal of respondent by the High Court can he sustained and whether there has been no miscarriage of justice by discarding overwhelming prosecution evidence? Order accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh. Hyderabad Circuit, dated 22-1-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.170 of 2003).
S. 9(c)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Trial Court convicted accused, but High Court on reassessment of evidence on record directed his acquittal which had been called in question through present petition
Reasons recorded by High Court did not appear to be sound and were based on surmises and conjectures without the support of law
Leave to appeal was granted to reappraise evidence in order to ascertain whether acquittal of accused by High Court could be sustained and whether there had been no miscarriage of justice by discarding overwhelming prosecution evidence.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHANGWANDAS, J.
Through this petition State seeks leave to appeal against Sindh High Court judgment, dated 22-1-2004 allowing respondent's appeal arising out of a case under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and acquitting the respondent of the charge.
2. Respondent was tried on the charge of trafficking two kilograms of contraband Charas by a police party of C.I.A., Hyderabad on or about 20-8-1999. Instead of forwarding the F.I.R. to Anti-Narcotic Force, C.I.A. police continued with the investigation and prosecuted the respondent before the Court of Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances, Hyderabad. At the conclusion of the trial respondent was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000 or suffer S.I. for six months in lieu thereof.
3. In appeal, however, a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, on reassessment of the evidence on record directed acquittal of the respondent which has been called in question through this petition.
4. We have heard learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. Tentatively speaking the reasons recorded by the High Court do not appear to be sound and are based on surmises and conjectures without the support of law. We are, therefore, inclined to grant leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence in order to ascertain whether the acquittal of respondent by the High Court can he sustained and whether there has been no miscarriage of justice by discarding overwhelming prosecution evidence? Order accordingly.
5. Let bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties be issued against the respondent returnable to the officer incharge of Karachi Branch Registry of this Court. H.B.T./S-36/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.