2006 PLP 953 (SCMR)
AZMAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 953 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | AZMAT ULLAH — 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 2006 PLP 953 (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 953 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 953 (SCMR) (AZMAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Sohail Dar, A.A.-G. Punjab for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 14-7-2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2003).
S. 9(c)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Recovery witnesses had no malice or reasons to falsely implicate the accused with the possession of a huge amount of "Charas" weighing five kilograms and their testimony could not be discarded merely because they were police officials, which otherwise had inspired confidence
Report of Chemical Examiner was in the positive
Impugned judgment of High Court was based on cogent reasons and did not suffer from any illegality
Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 14-7-2003 whereby a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2003 filed by the petitioner.
2. Facts briefly are that F.I.R. No.108 of 2002 was got registered. at the instance of P.W.3, Maqbool Hussain on 28-3-2002 at Police Station, Saddar Chishtian under section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as the petitioner was apprehended in a raid which was conducted upon an information and 5 K.G. of Charas was recovered from his possession. Out of the same 10 grams Charas was sent to the Chemical Examiner for test. After usual investigation, challan was submitted. The prosecution examined four witnesses to substantiate its case. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied his implication and sated that he had been involved due to enmity. He also made a statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and got examined Hafiz Abdul Rehman as D.W.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian, after thrashing the entire evidence, convicted the petitioner under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced him to 4 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.20,000 in default whereof to suffer imprisonment for 6 months, through his judgment dated 29-1-2003. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also accorded to him. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. The prosecution has proved its case by producing 4 witnesses. P.W.2 Muhammad Abbasi and P.W.3 Maqbool Hussain have substantiated the apprehension and recovery of the incriminating material from him. They do not have any malice or enmity against him. Their testimony cannot be discarded simply for the reason of being police officials if it otherwise confidence inspiring. As has already stated they did not have any malice or reasons to implicate him with the possession of such a huge amount of Charas. The Chemical Examiner report was also positive in nature.
4. The argument of the learned counsel that the incriminating material was taken by Khadim Hussain, P.W. while the same was given to Abdul Ghafar, according to P.W. would not advance his case any further. The learned Division Bench while dismissing the appeal has attended to all these aspects and dismissed the same by advancing cogent B reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference.
5. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition has no merits, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./A-458/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.