1994 PLP 434 (SCMR)
AZMAT KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 434 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | AZMAT KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 434 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 434 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 434 (SCMR) (AZMAT KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.G. Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993.
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Addl. Advocate‑General, N: W.F.P. for the State.
- 3. The learned Addl. Advocate‑General, however, argued that Article 4 of the Order has been amended by Ordinance 24 of 1993 dated 26‑9‑1993 whereby the word "Raw" has been omitted and now possession of opium exceeding one kilogram is punishable with imprisonment for life. It was further argued that challan against the accused/appellant has now been submitted and P.Ws. have been summoned for the date fixed in the case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7‑4‑1993 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Cr. Misc. No. 194 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Contentions that possession of "Raw Opium" only was punishable with imprisonment for life and not that of "opium" and that the amendment in Article 4 omitting the word "Raw" was not retrospective to make the same applicable to the case having been found to have force accused was allowed bail by Supreme Court. Noor Hussain v. The State PLD 1992 FSC 497 ref. Mian Shakirullah Jan, Addl. Advocate‑General, N: W.F.P. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Noor Hussain v. The State PLD 1992 FSC 497 ref. K.G. Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant. Mian Shakirullah Jan, Addl. Advocate‑General, N: W.F.P. for the State. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993. Leave granted in this case against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 7‑4‑1993; whereby the appellant's prayer for grant of bail in an offence under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, was dismissed.
2. The accused/appellant was apprehended with 5 kilogram of Opium and his bail application having been rejected by the lower Court he approached the High Court. The learned Judge in the Chamber dismissed the appellant's petition in his view that the offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is punishable with imprisonment for life. It was contended by the learned counsel that it was the possession of "Raw Opium" which is punishable with imprisonment for life and not opium as held in Noor Hussain v. The State (PLD 1992 F.S.C. 497). It was further contended that appellant was arrested with the Opium on 24‑1‑1993 but so far he has not been put on trial.
3. The learned Addl. Advocate‑General, however, argued that Article 4 of the Order has been amended by Ordinance 24 of 1993 dated 26‑9‑1993 whereby the word "Raw" has been omitted and now possession of opium exceeding one kilogram is punishable with imprisonment for life. It was further argued that challan against the accused/appellant has now been submitted and P.Ws. have been summoned for the date fixed in the case.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the amendment is not retrospective to make it applicable to the present case.
5. We find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with three sureties in the like amount from the men of means and from the settled area to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./A‑1062/S Bail allowed.