2022 PLP 819 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFOOR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 819 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 819 (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 2022 PLP 819 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 819 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFOOR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Inaam Amin Minhas, Special Prosecutor ANF for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 17.01.2018 of the High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench passed in Criminal Appeal No.D-99 of 2016)
S. 9(c)
Possession and transportation of 500 kilograms of cannabis
Safe transmission of samples to office of Chemical Examiner not established
Heinousness of the charge and huge quantity of the alleged contraband, notwithstanding, the prosecution was under a bounden responsibility to drive home the charge by proving each limb of its case that essentially included production of the witness, tasked with the responsibility of transmitting the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner
Failure of the prosecution in such regard cast away the entire case
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed; the impugned judgment was set aside; and accused was acquitted of the charge.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
The petitioner was on the wheel of an oil-tanker when intercepted by a contingent of ANF Sakkur on 04.05.2013; upon search, a huge cache of cannabis weighing 500 kg., concealed in the secret cavities, was recovered; Aziz Ahmed co-accused, on board, was also taken to the task; upon indictment, they claimed trial that resulted into their conviction under clause (b) of section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; they were sentenced to imprisonment for life with a direction to pay fine vide judgment dated 25.04.2016. The High Court acquitted Aziz Ahmed from the charge, however, maintained petitioner's conviction and sentence vide impugned judgment dated 17.01.2018, vires whereof, are being assailed primarily on the ground that prosecution hopelessly failed to drive home the charge inasmuch as none appeared to establish safe transmission of samples, secured at the time of seizure, to the office of Chemical Examiner so as to confirm the narcotic character of the contraband and, thus, there was no occasion for the trial Court as well as the High Court to assume that the seized contraband was actually cannabis without being presumptuous, an option hardly available under the law. The learned Special Prosecutor has not been able to controvert the position taken at the bar.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Heinousness of the charge and huge quantity of the alleged contraband, notwithstanding, the prosecution was under a bounden responsibility to drive home the charge by proving each limb of its case that essentially included production of the witness, tasked with the responsibility of transmitting the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner. Failure is devastatingly appalling with unredeemable consequences that cast away the entire case. Petition is converted into appeal and allowed; the impugned judgment is set aside; the appellant shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Director General Anti Narcotic Force; he shall order a probe into the grievous lapse in prosecution of the case with a view to fix responsibility for the delinquents. MWA/A-11/SC Appeal allowe