PCRLJ 2001

2001 P Cr (PLP)

FAYYAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Revisions Nos.57, 58 and 59 of 2000, heard on 24th October, 2000.
Honorable Judges
Sheikh Abdur Razzaq and Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2001 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Sheikh Abdur Razzaq and Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, JJ
Parties FAYYAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?

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 2001 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sheikh Abdur Razzaq and Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (FAYYAZ HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Khan Younas Khan for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 24th October, 2000.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑Ss. 9(c), 34 & 35‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.540 & 439‑‑‑Summoning of Chemical Examiner etc.‑‑‑All Narcotics Testing Laboratories set up by the Provincial Governments had been treated to be Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratories for the purposes of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by means of a Government Notification‑‑ Report of the Chemical Examiner submitted in the case would, therefore, be considered to be the report of a Notified Laboratory as contemplated under S.34 of the said Act and similarly the Chemical Examiner and the Assistant Chemical Examiner appointed therein would be considered to be Government Analyst as stipulated by S.35 of the Act‑‑‑Matter regarding admissibility of the report of the Chemical Examiner had been left open by 'the Sessions Court while passing the impugned order‑‑‑No need of summoning the Chemical, Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner existed in circumstances. Atta Muhammad Khan Baluch, Special Prosecutor for the State.

Judgment & Decree

SHEIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.‑‑‑ Instant criminal revision is directed against the order, dated 21‑8‑2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur whereby he has disallowed the application under section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code for summoning the Assistant Chemical Examiner and Chemical Examiner, Chemical Laboratory, Multan.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the instant case are that vide F. I. R. No. 18 of 1997, dated 10‑12‑1997 a case has been registered against the accused/petitioner under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Anti‑Narcotics Force, Bahawalpur. 2‑A. During the trial of the said case, the prosecution has brought on record, report of Chemical Examiner which has been admitted into evidence subject to objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner. After the said document has been brought on record, the accused/petitioner moved an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. for summoning the Assistant Chemical Examiner and Chemical Examiner, Chemical Laboratory, Multan on the ground mentioned therein. His said contentions were rebutted by the prosecution and finally the said application has been dismissed vide order, dated 21‑8‑2000. The accused/petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order through the instant criminal revision.

3. Alongwith this petition other Criminal Revisions Nos.58 of 2000 and 59 of 2000 have also been fled. As question of law is similar in all three petitions, so these are being disposed of by this order.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

5. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the very appointment of the Chemical Examiner is not in accordance with the provisions of sections 34 and 35 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; that the, Report of Chemical Examiner is also deficient in certain aspects as it does not contain the details of test to which the alleged recovered substance was subjected and the final result was given. He, thus, submits that it was incumbent upon the trial Court to summon the Chemical Examiner so as to verify the contents of the report.

6. Conversely the impugned order has: been supported by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. .

7. A perusal of, impugned order shows that Report of Chemical Examiner has been brought on record subject to objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is not issued by the Laboratory falling within the ambit of section 34 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and further that Chemical Examiner and Assistant Chemical Examiner are not Government Analysts within the purview of section 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

8. To appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of sections 34 and 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is necessary and the same are reproduced for ready reference:‑‑ "

34. Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratory, etc.‑‑‑ The Federal Government may, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, set up a Federal Narcotic Testing Laboratory and such other institutes and narcotics testing, research laboratories or notify any other laboratory or institute to be a Federal Narcotics, Testing Laboratory for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) The Provincial Government may, wherever deems appropriate, set up Provincial Narcotics Testing Laboratories.

35. Government Analyst.‑‑‑ The Federal Government or a Provincial Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Federal Government Analysts or, as the case may be, Provincial Government Analysts, for such areas and in respect of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or controlled substances as may be specified in the notification."

9. So far as the first objection is concerned that looses its force in view of the Notification No. SRO 596(1)/97, which is reproduced as follows:‑‑ "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 34 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997), the Federal Government is pleased to notify the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Laboratories (PCSIR) Lahore, National Institute of Health Laboratory, Islamabad, Sindh Laboratory of Chemical Analysis Karachi, PCSIR Laboratory, Karachi, PCSIR Laboratory, Peshawar and Central Drug. Laboratory, 7th Central Street, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi and all Narcotics Testing Laboratories set up by the Provincial Governments to be the Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratories for the purposes of the said Act. "

10. A perusal of notification referred above clearly reveals that all Narcotics Testing Laboratories set up by the Provincial Government have been treated to be Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratories for the purposes of said Act. It is thus, clear that the report of Chemical Examiner will be considered to be report of a notified Laboratory as contemplated under section 34 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and similarly the Chemical Examiner and Assistant Chemical Examiner appointed therein shall be considered to be Government Analyst as stipulated by section 35 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. This being the factual position the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of any force. So far as the question of admissibility of the reports of Chemical Examiner are concerned the matter has been left open by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order. There is no need of summoning the Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner and the request of the petitioner has rightly been declined vide impugned order. As a sequel to the above facts, criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./F‑31/L Revision petition dismissed.