2004 PLP 716 (SCMR)
ZAFAR IQBAL alias BABU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 716 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | ZAFAR IQBAL alias BABU — 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 2004 PLP 716 (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 2004 PLP 716 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 716 (SCMR) (ZAFAR IQBAL alias BABU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Asghar Khan Rokhari, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th December, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-2-2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No.201 of 1999 by the Lahore High Court, Lahore).
S. 9(c)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.367(2)-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Contention of the petitioner was that the Trial Court while convicting the accused had not rendered the judgment in accordance with the provisions of S.367(2), Cr.P.C. and the non-mentioning of the relevant statute under which the conviction was ordered had rendered the whole exercise illegal and void-- Validity
Such was purely a technical objection as the accused was aware at the time of trial that charge under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had been framed against him
Such omission of non-mentioning of the section in the judgment had not at all prejudiced the case of the accused
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 20-2-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal bearing No.201 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed giving him the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Facts briefly stated are that F.I.R. No. 122, dated 13-6-1997 was got recorded under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at the instance of Manzoor Hussain, S.-I. at Police Station Waan Bachran of District Mianwali. After investigation the challan was submitted before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mianwali. Evidence was recorded and the learned trial Judge after thrashing the entire evidence brought on record, convicted the petitioner vide his judgment dated 4-2-1999 sentencing him to 14 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,00,000 or in default of payment of the said fine to undergo further R.I. for two years.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.201 of 1999 which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide judgment dated 20-2-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has only argued that the learned trial Court while convicting the petitioner has not rendered the judgment in accordance with the provisions of section 367(2), Cr.P.C. and the non-mentioning of the section has rendered the whole exercise illegal and void.
5. We have considered the contention of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It must be mentioned at the very outset that the learned counsel for the petitioner even before the High Court too, did not argue the case on merits and took up only the point of non-mentioning of section in the judgment under which the petitioner was convicted. This is purely a technical objection as the petitioner was aware at the time of trial that charge under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had been framed against him. This omission of non-mentioning of the section in the judgment has not at all prejudiced the case of the petitioner.
6. This being the position, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. M.B.A./Z-124/S Leave refused.