SCMR 2010

2010 PLP 1744 (SCMR)

JAVID-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No.206 of 2009, decided on 15th June, 2009.
Honorable Judges
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J., Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 1744 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J., Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ
Parties JAVID-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1744 (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 2010 PLP 1744 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J., Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1744 (SCMR) (JAVID-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Ghufran Khurshid Imtiaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
  • Date of hearing: 15th June, 2009.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 3-4-2009 passed by Peshawar High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous/Bail Application No.147 of 2009).

S. 497

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)

Possessing narcotic drug

Bail, refusal of

Accused were allegedly found possessing huge quantity of heroin

Although on one date prosecution witnesses were present in court, but counsel of accused did not appear for recording of their evidence

Since trial had commenced and progress was being made in the case, therefore without dilating upon the merits of the case petition was dismissed, with direction to Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the same within six weeks

Defence counsel was also directed to cooperate with the court for expeditious disposal of the case. Niaz Ahmed Rathore, Special Prosecutor ANG and Mumtaz Hussain, Investigation Officer with record for the State.

Judgment & Decree

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.

This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 3-4-2009 passed by Peshawar High Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ANF, in order to deprive the petitioners and six other persons from an amount of Rs.75,00,000, detail of which has been mentioned in the application, submitted to various authorities including the trial Court (copy of which is available on record), has allegedly concocted a false case against them. They had been submitting applications to various authorities for conducting investigation but no one has given them response. It is their case that Secretary, Narcotics Division was also approached for re-investigation of the case but no action has been taken.

3. Learned Special Prosecutor-General denied the allegations and contended that plea has been raised by the petitioners and others to save themselves from accusation of heinous crime of possessing a huge quantity of heroin.

4. It is to be noted that in the application before the. High Court and trial Court, no such plea was raised by the petitioner as it is evident from the contents of the application. When we inquired from learned counsel for the 'petitioner he failed to satisfy us in this behalf. Be that as it may, let Secretary ANF on his own, without being prejudiced from the court proceedings, look into the matter according to law.

5. It is to be noted that on one time i.e. 1st June, 2009, although the prosecution witnesses were present but learned counsel did not appear for recording of their evidence, as it is evident from the order sheet maintained by the trial Court, which has been produced for our perusal.

6. Be that as it may, since trial has commenced and progress is being made in the case therefore, without dilating upon the merits of the case we dismiss this petition with direction to the trial Court to expedite the case within a period of six weeks. Learned defence counsel, however, is required to co-operate with the court so the case is disposed of expeditiously. N.H.Q./J-3/SC Petition dismissed.